SCHOOL    PROGRESS 

AND 

SCHOOL    FACTS 


SCHOOL    PROBLEMS? 

ARE  YOU       SCHOOL  needs? 
INTERESTED  ^SCHOOL  results? 


IN 


SCHOOL    FACTS? 

SCHOOL    REPORTS   AS   THEY    ARE? 


Price.  2S  Cents 


BUREAU  OF  MUNICIPAL  RESEARCH 
261   Broadway 

July,    1909 

2  2^^^:    i    T 


CONTENTS 


Foreword :  page 

Trustees,   Bureau  of  Municipal  Research 3-7 


School  Reports  As  They  Are  :     A  Rejoinder  : 

John  ly.  Tildsley,  Principal  DeWitt  Clinton  High 
School,  New  York  City,  answered  point  for  point  from 
oflScial  records  by  Mr.  Allen 8-38 

School  Reports  As  they  Are  : 

William  H.  Allen 39-56 

Questions  Answered  by  School  Reports  As  They  Are  : 

Bureau  of  Municipal  Research 57-73 


SCHOOL    PROGRESS 

AND 

SCHOOL    FACTS 


SCHOOL    PROBLEMS? 

ARE  YOU       SCHOOL  needs? 
INTERESTED  ^  SCHOOL  results? 


IN 


SCHOOL    FACTS? 

SCHOOL    REPORTS   AS  THEY   ARE? 


Price,  25  Cents 


BUREAU  OF  MUNICIPAL  RESEARCH 
261   Broadway 

July,    1909 


L3 

FOREWORD  ^^is 

BY    THE    TRUSTEES 

of    the 

BUREAU    OF    MUNICIPAL    RESEARCH 


In  the  May  number  of  the  Educational  Review  appeared  an 
article  by  Dr.  John  L.  Tildsley,  Principal  of  the  DeWitt  Clinton 
High  School,  New  York  City,  which  contained  several  misstate- 
ments of  fact  and  several  ungrounded  inferences  relative  to  the 
Bureau  of  Municipal  Research.  The  article  is  entitled  "School 
Reports  As  They  Are;  A  Rejoinder,"  and  was  prompted  by  an 
earlier  article  in  the  February  number  of  the  Educational  Review 
by  Mr.  William  H.  Allen,  entitled  "School  Reports  As  They  Are." 

As  writer  of  numerous  articles  on  educational  topics,  and  as 
author  of  books  dealing  with  educational  efficiency,  Mr.  Allen  is 
competent  to  make  for  himself  explanations  or  defences  of  publi- 
cations in  his  name.  Therefore,  with  those  portions  of  Dr. 
Tildsley's  article  which  refer  to  Mr.  Allen,  as  writer,  the  Bureau 
of  Municipal  Research  does  not  concern  itself  farther  than  to 
publish  for  distribution  (a)  Mr.  Allen's  original  article,  (b)  an 
index  to  facts  answered  in  y2  reports,  (c)  Dr.  Tildsley's  article, 
and  (d)  Mr.  Allen's  reply.  So  far,  however,  as  the  purpose 
and  method  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  have  been 
misrepresented  or  inadequately  represented,  the  trustees  of 
that  Bureau  feel  it  incumbent  upon  them  to  modify,  correct  or 
deny  five  propositions  in  Dr.  Tildsley's  article : 

I.  "The  chief  aims  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  are 
the  discovery  of  facts  and  the  installation  of  systems 
of  recording  facts."    (p.  433). 

The  purposes  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  are  de- 
fined in  its  charter  and  have  been  repeatedly  published  and  demon- 
strated through  works  as  follows: — "To  promote  efficient  and 
economical  municipal  government;  to  promote  the  adoption  of 
scientific  methods  of  accounting  and  of  reporting  the  details  of 
municipal  business  with  a  view  to  facilitating  publicity  in  matters 
pertaining  to  municipal  problems ;  to  collect,  to  classify,  to  analyze, 
to  correlate,  to  interpret  and  to  publish  facts  as  to  the  administra- 
tion of  municipal  government." 

3 

.'598918 


2.  "A  recent  report  of  the  Bureau  supports  the  contention 

of  Dr.  MaxzvcU's  report  that  medical  inspection 
should  be  transferred  to  the  board  of  education  and 
that  laws  should  be  passed  compelling  parents  to 
secure  medical  service  for  their  children."  (p.  439)- 

The  report  from  which  this  sentence  is  quoted,  "A  Bureau 
of  Child  Hygiene,"  was  first  given  out  by  Health  Commissioner 
Darlington  at  a  joint  session  of  public  education  associations  and 
the  International  Congress  on  Tuberculosis,  at  Washington,  Octo- 
ber, 1908.  It  showed  that  more  law  was  not  necessary  for  parents 
of  96%  of  1400  children  and  that  the  break-down  of  physical  ex- 
amination was  due,  not  to  the  fact  that  it  was  under  the  health 
department,  but  to  administrative  weaknesses  which  were  easily 
corrected  in  the  case  of  the  1400  children  studied,  by  instruction 
of  mothers  and  by  facilitating  treatment  of  children  found  to 
have  easily  removable  defects.  Instead  of  supporting  the  con- 
tentions mentioned  in  the  rejoinder,  it  proved  that  substituting 
efficiency  for  inefficiency  in  the  department  of  health  had  ac- 
complished in  three  schools  the  results  contemplated  by  the 
passage  of  additional  laws  and  by  the  transfer  of  examination  to 
the  department  of  education. 

3.  "The  Bureau  probably  made  special  reports  leading  to  a 

reduction  of  $^,500,000  in  the  board  of  education 
budget  for  1909."  {pp.  440,  442,  445). 

The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  made  no  special  reports 
whatever  to  the  committee  that  made  up  the  tentative  budget  al- 
lowances for  1909,  nor  to  the  board  of  estimate  or  the  board  of 
aldermen  which  finally  passed  those  allowances.  By  invitation  of 
Mayor  McClellan  and  Comptroller  Metz,  the  Bureau's  representa- 
tives cooperated  with  the  so-called  "budget  committee"  which 
.went  over  in  detail  the  various  departmental  estimates  and  the 
recommendations  of  the  bureau  of  municipal  investigation  and 
statistics.  It  made  no  statements  about  the  school  estimates  to 
that  committee  which  it  had  not  printed  during  the  three  months 
preceding  in  the  form  of  budget  notes  for  the  newspapers.  Its 
participation  was  confined  to  asking  questions  which  brought  out 
for  discussion  reasons  for  or  against  recommendations  made  by 
the  bureau  of  municipal  investigation  and  statistics.  The  minutes 
of  the  sessions  will  show  that  when  the  evidence  was  before  the 
committee  the  Bureau's  representatives  (i)  had  no  responsibility 


for  effecting  any  of  the  reductions  mentioned  specifically  by  Dr. 
Tildsley;  (2)  suggested  that  either  more  facts  be  obtained  to 
justify  the  discrepancy  in  the  repair  allowances  for  Queens  and 
The  Bronx,  or  that  such  discrepancies  be  eliminated;  (3)  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  the  community  wanted  a  progressive  policy 
in  vocational  training. 

When  its  representatives  declared  that  the  community  was  in 
favor  of  more  money  for  kitchens  and  vocational  training,  city 
officials  replied  that  although  money  had  been  repeatedly  voted  for 
these  purposes,  the  board  of  education  had  failed  to  use  the  funds 
for  such  purposes. 

When  it  declared  that  the  enforcement  of  the  Newsboys'  Law 
and  the  Compulsory  Attendance  Law  would  require  a  larger  in- 
crease in  the  funds  for  attendance  officers,  the  city  officials  replied 
that  funds  voted  the  preceding  year  for  increasing  the  number  of 
attendance  officers  had  been  used  for  other  purposes  and  that  the 
city  superintendent  of  schools  had  expressed  satisfaction  with 
$113,000  rather  than  $126,000  for  attendance  officers  in  1909. 

4.  "Since    the  Bureau   of  Municipal  Research   claims   the 

credit,  it  must  be  held  responsible  for  the  great  in- 
jury to  the  educational  system  wrought  as  a  result 
of  its  activities."  (p.  441). 

As  was  shown  above,  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research 
never  claimed,  never  had,  credit  for  reductions.  Never  in  its 
history  has  the  department  of  education  been  given  all  of  the 
money  that  it  requested.  A  cut  of  several  million  dollars  was 
taken  for  granted  by  all  officials  and  taxpayers,  months  before 
the  budget  for  1909  was  discussed.  With  regard  to  the  school 
budget,  as  with  regard  to  every  other  budget,  the  Bureau  of  ]\Iu- 
nicipal  Research  has  consistently  held  that  the  city  has  money 
enough  to  prevent  all  injuries  which  can  be  proved,  and  that 
money  should  be  refused  or  voted  only  because  of  evidence  that 
it  is  needed  or  not  needed.  At  the  time  the  reductions  referred  to 
by  Dr.  Tildsley  were  made,  the  educational  authorities  did  not 
prove  or  attempt  to  prove  the  injuries  now  alleged  by  the  re- 
joinder. 

5.  The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  "has  acquired,  on  the 

one  hand  an   over-developed  critical  faculty   of  a 


rather  destructive  kind;  on  the  other,  it  is  the 
prophet  of  salvation  through  fact-seeking,  fact-col- 
lecting and  fact-arranging.  It  is  inclined  to  lay  em- 
phasis on  system,  and  not  men,  on  bookkeeping 
rather  than  personality ;  and  therefore,  Mr.  Allen,  in 
the  spirit  of  his  institution,  has  noted  slight  dis- 
crepancies and  has  enlarged  upon  them."  (p.  448). 

Mayor  McClellan,  Comptroller  Metz,  Health  Commissioner 
Darlington,  the  Charter  Revision  Commission,  the  Joint  Legisla- 
tive Committee  to  Investigate  New  York  City's  Finances,  Gover- 
nor Hughes,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  the  Merchants'  Asso- 
ciation, not  to  mention  hosts  of  editorial  writers  and  private  citi- 
zens, have  disagreed  with  the  rejoinder  and  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  critical  faculty  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research 
is  never  simply  destructive,  but  is  notably  constructive. 

Characterizing  the  Bureau's  method  Mayor  McClellan's  mes- 
sage of  Jan.  4,  1909,  said :  "The  service  ol  the  Bureau  in  purely 
municipal  work  marks  a  new  departure  in  city  government, — the 
active  cooperation  of  the  public  with  the  city  administration." 
Commissioner  of  Accounts  Mitchel  wrote  in  the  New  York  World 
of  Sept.  6,  1908:  "The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  may  very 
properly  be  considered  the  most  important  non-official  expression 
of  popular  concern  for  the  efficient  conduct  of  New  York's  mu- 
nicipal business." 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce  has  urged  all  taxpayers  of  New 
York  to  give  the  Bureau  "their  strong  financial  and  moral  sup- 
port," because  "its  work  is  constructive  and  is  along  the  line  of 
helpful  criticism  rather  than  hostile  attack." 

Governor  Hughes,  at  the  Budget  Exhibit,  Nov.  2,  1908,  said : 
"The  character  of  the  Bureau's  investigation  to  aid  administration 
in  this  city  marks  one  of  the  most  important  improvements  of  re- 
cent years.  It  is  striving  to  get  at  the  facts  in  an  honorable, 
straightforward  way  and  is  striving  to  present  them  so  that 
they  will  be  intelligently  comprehended." 

Prof.  L.  S.  Rowe,  in  his  book  on  "Problems  of  City  Govern- 
ment," says : 

"The  establishment  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  in 
New  York  City  marks  an  epoch  in  the  process  of  enlightening 
public  opinion.    The  education  of  public  opinion  in  municipal  af- 


fairs,  which  has  been  pushed  with  such  vigor  during  the  last  few 
years,  must  now  be  systematized  and  made  general  throughout  the 
United  States.  Every  community  in  the  country  stands  in  need  of 
agencies  such  as  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  of  New  York 
City,  to  place  the  public  in  full  possession  of  the  facts  concerning 
municipal  services." 

The  Bureau  is  the  prophet,  not  of  salvation  but  of  intelligent 
citizenship,  not  through  fact-seeking,  fact-collecting  and  fact- 
arranging  merely  but  through  fact-understanding  of  the  truth  by 
the  general  public.  If  it  lays  emphasis  on  system  and  bookkeep- 
ing, it  is  only  because  experience  has  proved  that  proper  system 
and  bookkeeping  reveal  the  truth  about  the  efficiency  of  men  and 
personality.  Without  system  the  ablest  men  are  certain  to  become 
victims  of  unfounded  charges. 

The  New  York  Times,  commenting  upon  the  need  for  ade- 
quate school  records,  recently  described  the  position  which  the 
Bureau  has  been  trying  to  have  universally  adopted:  "The 
board  of  education  ought  to  have  all  the  information  a  factory 
manager  would  require  to  know  whether  his  plant  was  work- 
ing efficiently  and  where  improvement  was  possible." 

Far  from  noting  slight  discrepancies  and  enlarging  upon 
them,  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  has  founded  its  public 
statements  upon  most  exhaustive  examination  not  only  of  the  or- 
ganization of  departments  discussed,  but  also  of  records  running 
over  years,  showing  results  of  departmental  activity. 

In  presenting  these  considerations,  the  trustees  of  the  Bureau 
of  Municipal  Research  have  had  in  mind  not  only  the  body  of 
students  and  administrators  who  may  have  been  misled  by  Dr. 
Tildsley's  article,  but  also  business  men  and  educators  in  New 
York  and  elsewhere  who  have  received  reprints  of  that  article 
directly  from  school  officials  or  from  New  York  City's  Public 
Education  Association. 

(Signed) 

Edwin  R.  A.  Seligman,  CJtairman      Richard  Watson  Gilder 
Frank  Tucker,  Vice-Chairman  John  B.  Pine 

R.  Fulton  Cutting,  Treasurer  Albert  Shaw 

Frank  A.  Vanderlip 


SCHOOL  REPORTS  AS   THEY  ARE:  A  REJOINDER 

Socrates  considered  the  Sophists  undesirable  citizens  in  that 
they  always  sought  to  make  the  worse  cause  appear  the  better. 
Is   there  not  grave  danger  in  these  days  that  the   fact-hunting 
reformer,   as    he    runs   amuck   among  the   departments   of   the 
government  of  a  great  city,  may  make  the  better  cause  appear 
the  worse?    Is  there  not  ground  to  fear,  as  he  attempts  to  show 
Repeatedly  the  National  Education  Association  has  de- 
clared that  in  reporting  school  work  and  school  needs  any 
confusion  which  makes  it  impossible  to   discover  the  inef- 
ficient, wasteful  and  dishonest  also  covers  up  honesty,  econ- 
omy and  efficiency, 
all    departments    to   be   badly    managed,    all    officers    inefficient, 
and  many  of  them  dishonest,  that  the  confidence  of  the  people 
may   be    so    shaken   in   the   possibility   of   efficient   government 
that  two  disastrous  results  will  ensue,  the  first  one,  that  our 
best  men  may  be  unwilling  to  take  office,  the  second  that  citi- 
zens may  seek  to  contract  rather  than  to  expand  the  activities 
of  our  city  governments? 

Deplorable  as  it  would  be  for  citizens  to  lose  faith  in  the 
honesty  and  efficiency  of  the  management  of  other  city  depart- 
ments, it  would  be  most  disastrous  should  they  lose  their  faith 
in  those  who  administer  our  schools,  and  thus  be  led  to  curtail 
the  work  of  the  schools. 

Nothing  could  be  more  deplorable  than  for  educators  to 
mislead  the  public's  faith  in  the  principle  of  universal  educa- 
tion, and  either  to  misrepresent  the  purposes  for  which  money 
is  being  spent,  to  spend  more  than  is  needed  on  the  quantity 
and   quality   of   education   maintained,   or  to   spend   millions 
without  attempting  to  apply  efficiency  tests  to  policies  and 
methods. 
The  attacks  that  are  being  made  upon  the  administration  of 
our  schools  today  can  only  further  the  cause  of  those  taxpayers 
who  under  the  guise  of  economy  seek  to  cut  down  to  the  lowest 
limits  expenditures  for  education  and  especially  those  for  teach- 
ers' salaries. 

So  far  as  New  York  is  concerned,  taxpayers'  bodies  have 
repeatedly  gone  on  record  as  demanding  adequate  pay.    In 


School  Reports  as  They  Are:  A  Rejoinder,  appeared  in  the  Educational  Review  for 
May,  1909,  signed  by  John  L.  Tildsley,  Principal  DeWitt  Clinton  High  School,  New  York 
City.  To  distinguish  the  rejoinder  from  my  comment  upon  it,  the  former  is  printed  in 
full  width,  10  point  Roman  type;  the  latter,  indented  in  8  point  black  face. 


igoS,  when  school  officials  were  requested  to  explain  to  tax- 
payers their  estimate,  including  salary  changes,  not  only  did 
the  president  and  the  city  superintendent  decline  to  come, 
but  the  latter  forbade  Miss  Grace  Strachan  to  come  to  ex- 
plain the  salary  increase  bill.  Numerous  statements  on  con- 
troverted points  made  by  the  educational  authorities  to  tax- 
payers were,  as  will  be  shown  later,  misstatements. 

Those  of  us  who  have  been  trying  for  years  to  obtain  for 
the  teachers  of  New  York  City  a  hving  wage,  and  who  have 
finally  convinced  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  wisdom  of 
securing  this  for  its  teachers,  are  most  apprehensive  of  the  un- 
fortunate effects  which  may  arise  from  the  publication  of  an 
article  in  the  February  issue  of  this  Review  which,  under  the 
guise  of  a  study  of  school  reports,  is  largely  a  malevolent  criti- 
cism of  the  management  of  the  public  school  system  of  New 
York  City. 

No    criticism   of   the   management    of   the   public   school 
system  in  New  York  City  which  was  ever  written  by  a  per- 
son outside  the  school  system  could  do  so  much  to  shake 
public    confidence    in    school    management   as    does   this    re- 
joinder, with  its  inaccuracies,  misstatements,  evasions,  mis- 
quotations, and  unconvincing  apologies.     The  fact  that  the 
writer  and  his  collaborators  among  school  officers  and  em- 
ployees wish  to  help  the  schools  only  aggravates  the  injury 
done  by  them  in  exhibiting  publicly,  through  this  rejoinder, 
so  many  weaknesses  which  heretofore  were  suspected  but,  for 
want  of  records,  difficult  to  prove. 
This  article,   by  reason  of   the  position  the   writer  occupies 
as  Secretary  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research,  is  sure,  if 
unanswered,  to  exert  a  very  unfortunate  influence  not  only  in 
New  York  City  but  elsewhere. 

This  article  was  requested  by  Dr.  Nicholas  Murray 
Butler,  who  wished  the  subject  treated  "from  the  standpoint 
of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  and  its  general  program 
for  effective  publicity." 

The  same  number  that  included  it  also  had  an  ad- 
vertisement of  School  Reports  and  School  Efficiency,  with 
these  words:  "Its  primary  purpose  is  to  show  how  the  actual 
facts  of  school  administration  are  to  be  got  at,  so  that  the 
school  principal  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  taxpayer  on  the 
other,  can  tell  exactly  how  school  funds  have  been  expended 
and  how  the  greatest  efficiency  in  school  management  is  to 
be  secured." 
This  article,  written  by  Mr.  Allen  in  collaboration  with  Dr. 
Elizabeth  K.  Adams  of  Smith  College,  seems  to  be  based  largely 


My  article  was  based  on  work  done  during  the  summer 
of  1908,  and  so  stated.    Chapter  VII  was  not  "an  earlier  arti- 
cle," but  prepared  specially  for  the  report  of  the  committee 
on  physical  welfare  of  school  children,  which  appeared  under 
the  title  School  Reports  and  School  Efficiency, 
on  an  earlier  article  which  constitutes  Chapter  VII  of  Snedden 
and  Allen's  School  reports  and  school  efficiency  entitled  "A  prac- 
tical study  of  one  school  report"  (New  York  City). 

Tho  the  article  deals  with  the  reports  of  some  62  different 
cities,   the   chief   emphasis   is   laid   on   the    reports   of   the   City 
72,  not  62  different  cities.    The  chief  emphasis  is  not  laid 
on  the  reports  of  the  city  superintendent  of  New  York  City, 
which  were   used   only   to   illustrate   points  within   my   own 
experience  and  provable  from  records  at  hand. 
Superintendent  of  New  York  City.     Of  Dr.  Maxwell's  Eighth 
Annual  Report  for  the  year  ending  July  31,   1906,   Mr.  Allen 
in  his  earlier  article  thus   wrote:  "A  word-to-word  reading  of 
this  document  of  479  pages  shows  that  it  deals  with  questions 
of  tremendous  moment  not  only  to  New  York  City  but  to  the 
educational  world.     In  fact,  it  is  probable  that  no  other  single 
school  report  touches  upon  so  many  problems  and  so  many  aims 
of  a  public  school  system.     Efifective  use  is  repeatedly  made  of 
tabular  statements  to  disclose  tendencies,  to  show  increases  and 
decreases,  to  advertise  the  needs  of  different  districts  and  dif- 
ferent schools  for  special  facilities,  to  interpret  the  progress  of 
certain  lines  of  educational  effort." 

The  commended  chapter  showed  by  actual  citations  that 
"so  far  as  the  New  York  report  falls  short,  it  is  probably  true 
of  it,  as  of  no  other,  that  it  is  a  serious  handicap  to  educa- 
tional advance  throughout  the  world."  It  was  shown  to  be 
defective  in  technical  methods,  to  waste  space  in  setting  up, 
to  lack  adequate  summary  tables.  It  was  shown  that  totals 
were  not  classified;  that  districts  having  thousands  of  part-time 
pupils  also  actually  had  many  seats  to  spare;  that  district  sup- 
erintendents' reports  were  not  uniform;  that  by  the  method  used 
of  reporting  averages  of  standing,  a  class  where  eight  out  of 
ten  have  a  passing  mark  of  70  might  show  100  per  cent,  of 
failure;  that  numerous  important  questions  regarding  truancy 
were  not  answered;  that  needs  were  not  shown  with  regard 
to  roof  gardens,  gymnasiums,  shower  baths,  proper  ventila- 
tion, play  space,  adjustable  desks,  truant  officers;  that  the 
cost  of  vacation  schools  was  not  shown;  that  the  published 
per  capita  cost  was  not  right;  that  the  reasoning  was  often 
illogical  and  inconsequential,  as  in  the  cost  of  supplies;  that 
the  superintendent  guessed  where  he  might  know  the  cause 
of  children  dropping  out  of  school;   that  the  school  census 


was  relatively  futile  for  want  of  proper  use  by  school  au- 
thorities, and  that  because  the  census  records  were  buried  in 
the  storeroom,  another  great  opportunity  was  lost  to  help  the 
cause  of  education  by  locating  more  clearly  its  problems;  that 
the  report  regarding  physical  defects  of  school  children  was 
very  deficient;  that  at  a  critical  time,  when  the  fiscal  authori- 
ties of  the  city  had  become  thoroughly  interested  in  the  possi- 
bility of  saving  millions  in  the  future  by  extending  health 
protection  over  all  districts,  the  official  report  of  the  schools 
came  out  and  did  not  even  suggest  that  more  money  was 
needed  for  discovering  the  pupils'  need  of  attention  and  for 
insuring  such  attention;  that  the  report  was  not  written  to 
the  general  public;  and  that  recommendations  were  made 
without  giving  the  public  facts  to  warrant  them. 

No  one  can  read  Mr.  Allen's  article  in  the  February  Educa- 
tional Review  and  accept  his  statements  as  facts  and  his 
conclusions  as  valid  without  believing  that  for  some  reason  Mr. 
Allen  has  changed  his  opinion  of  the  value  of  the  reports  of 
the  City  Superintendent.  Indeed,  one  can  hardly  accept  Mr. 
Allen's  judgment  of  these  reports  as  exprest  in  the  last  article 
and  believe  they  are  to  any  extent  trustworthy  as  records  of 
facts  and  interpreters  of  experience,  for  in  an  opening  paragraph 
he  writes,  "After  living  in  New  York  thru  five  years  when 
schools  and  public  alike  have  suffered  because  school  problems 
were  discust  on  theoretical  and  personal  grounds  just  as  if  New 
York  were  without  experience,  I  have  come  to  believe  that  there 
is  probably  no  need  today  in  the  educational  world  so  pressing 
as  that  for  adequate  recording  and  reporting  of  school  expe- 
rience." 

To  confirm  the  conclusion  quoted,  much  has  happened 
recently:  misstatements  to  the  board  of  aldermen  regarding 
playgrounds  and  vacation  schools;  confusion  about  school 
sites  owned  by  the  board  of  education;  conflicting  recom- 
mendations with  regard  to  school  accommodations  needed; 
particularly  the  failure  of  a  high  school  principal,  the  city 
superintendent  of  schools  and  the  auditor  to  quote  accurately 
and  to  interpret  properly  official  records,  which  were  easily 
accessible  and  presumably  consulted  while  the  rejoinder  was 
in  preparation. 

The  discovery  of  facts  and  the  installation  of  systems  of 
recording  facts  are  the  chief  aims  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal 
Research. 

The  want  of  facts  and  a  bad  system  of  recording 
facts   are   the   chief  charges   brought  against   school   reports   in 


general  and  those  of  New  York  City  in  particular.  A  judg- 
ment that  is  the  result  of  years  of  observation,  of  conversation 
with  hundreds  of  teachers,  principals,  and  superintendents,  is 
not,  in  Mr.  Allen's  opinion,  a  fact  to  be  considered  in  deter- 
mining educational  policy,  if  we  judge  him  by  his  condemnation 
of  the  City  Superintendent  of  New  York  for  giving  as  the 
reason  of  the  failure  of  certain  pupils  to  complete  the  high 
school  course,  the  result  of  his  own  experience  and  that  of  teach- 
ers, rather  than  tabulated  figures. 

Observing    and    talking    do    not    reflect    the    needs    of 
600,000  children.      "Conversations  with  hundreds  of  teachers, 
principals  and  superintendents"  do  not  convey  the  result  of 
school  experience.    Educators  differ  on  so  many  points  that 
the  only  recourse  for  laymen  is  definite  information,  reducible 
to  some  common  language  which  means  the  same  everywhere 
and  at  all  times.      Only  a   small  number  of  principals  and 
teachers  participate  in  "conversations,"  while  all  are  given  an 
equal  hearing  by  adequate  reports. 
Mr.  Allen's  conception  of  the  value  of  facts  is  best  shown  by 
his  table  of  facts  reported  by  the  superintendents  of  ten  cities. 
Altogether  they  report  3,048  different  facts.     The  total  possibility 
From  a  paragraph  written  to  show  nothing  else  but  lack 
of  uniformity.     No  attempt  was  made  to  decide  which  facts 
were  valuable  or  not  valuable.     All  facts  from  each  report 
were  recorded, 
of  fact  reporting  by  the  ten  cities  was  thus  30,480;  the  actual 
number  reported  was  but  4,149;  the  ten  superintendents  failed 
in  their  duty  of  reporting  facts  to  the  extent  of  27,423  facts.     I 
quote  exact  figures.     Of  the  total  possible  diiTerent  facts,  3,048, 
the  City  Superintendent  of  New  York  reported  955,  an  efficiency 
of  31  per  cent.     The  average  of  the  whole  group  was  but  13.5 
per  cent.,  so  that  the  City  Superintendent  of  New  York  was 
twice  as  efficient  as  the  average  of  the  group,  but  even  he  fell 
into  the  C  class,  if  the  completion  of  facts  be  the  true  test  of 
the  efficiency  of  a  superintendent.    May  we  not  well  question  Mr. 
Allen's  dictum  that  the  greatest  need  in  education  is  the  report- 
ing of  such  educational  facts  ?    Is  not  a  greater  need  the  presence 
in  our  educational  system  of  men  of  large  vision,  of  keen  insight 
and  sound  judgment,  whose  every  utterance  is  a  fact  to  be  reck- 
oned with  and  worthy  to  form  the  basis  for  a  new  movement  and 
a  resulting  expenditure  of  funds? 

For  over  fifty  years  leading  educators  have  declared  em- 
phatically that  the  "every  utterance  of  men  of  large  vision" 
is  not  a  safe  reliance  "to  form  the  basis  for  a  new  movement 


and  resulting  expenditure  of  funds."  I  can  conceive  of  no 
doctrine  that  will  do  so  much  to  shake  the  faith  of  citizens 
in  both  the  honesty  and  efficiency  of  schools  as  to  try  to  en- 
force the  theory  that  the  unsupported  utterance  of  a  superin- 
tendent of  schools  is  enough  to  justify  expenditure  of  funds. 
Suppose  the  next  superintendent  utters  the  reverse?  Who 
knows  what  the  "utterance"  means?  What  if  "every  utter- 
ance" changes  over  night,  as  is  often  the  case  where  school 
officials  try  to  get  results  from  an  uninformed  public? 

Through  the  rejoinder,  the  superintendent's  "every  utter- 
ance"  declares  that  to   carry  out  his  recommendations  will 
cost   a   mere   bagatelle,   and   infinitely   less   than   $25,000,000, 
whereas  the  list   on  page   14  shows  that  they  represent  an 
immediate  outlay  of  $20,500,000  and  a  capitalized  outlay  of 
almost  $200,000,000. 
Inasmuch  as  Mr.  Allen  lays  so  much  emphasis  on  facts,  and 
since  he  criticises  school  reports,  and  especially  those  of  New 
York  for  the  conspicuous  absence  of  facts,  it  is  but  fair  to  Mr. 
Allen  and  to  the  various  superintendents  criticised,  to  take  up 
the  "facts"  of  his  article  and  to  test  them  to  see  if  they  really 
give  us  the  truth,  which  is  the  aim  of  his  Bureau. 

The  first  facts  cited  are  that  the  New  York  report  has  not 
an  adequate  index,  that  the  title  does  not  appear  on  the  back,  that 
the  typography  could  be  improved,  that  the  statistical  tables  could 
be  better  arranged,  and  that  some  of  the  sentences  are  long. 
Here  Mr.  Allen  scores.  Had  he  gone  no  farther,  he  might  have 
achieved  a  reputation  for  candor  and  truthfulness. 

Such  "facts"  as  the  following,  however,  cited  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research,  if  allowed  to  stand  un- 
challenged,  would   seriously  lessen  the  possibilities   for  useful- 
ness of  the  City  Superintendent  of  New  York  and  shake  the  con- 
fidence of  the  public  in  our   whole  system  of  education.     "It 
Nothing  can  shake  the  confidence  of  the  public  in  our 
whole  system  of  education  so  much  as  knowledge  that  it  is 
not  being  given  the  whole  truth  with  regard  to  its  schools. 
'      If  to  execute  twenty-six  recommendations  will  cost  $20,500,- 
000,  the  fact  should  be  boldly  stated  and  candidly  defended. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  carrying  out  these  recommendations 
would   cost    nearly   $200,000,000,    either   all    items    should    be 
defended  by  facts,   or   some   of  the   recommendations   with- 
drawn.    To   make   recommendations  without   knowing  what 
they  will  cost,  and  then  to  endeavor  to  minimize  their  cost, 
will  everywhere  and  at  all  times  lessen  the  possibilities  for 
usefulness  of  any  public  official. 

Until  the  rejoinder,  there  was  no  reason  to  know  that 
the  superintendent's  recommendations  had  been  made  with- 

13 


out  some  conception  of  their  cost;  I  had  merely  emphasized 
the  absence  of  supporting  facts  in  his  official  statement  to 
the  public.  It  now  appears  that  he  had  not  only  failed  to 
compute  the  cost,  but  that  he  is  so  dismayed  by  my  under- 
estimate that  he  practically  says  to  the  public,  through  this 
rejoinder,  that  the  recommendations  are  not  of  a  character 
to  justify  so  great  an  expenditure.  Sober  deliberation  will 
prove  that  many  of  them  are  worth  what  they  need  cost, 
would  cost  approximately  $25,000,000  to  carry  out  the  recom- 
mendations  made   by    Superintendent    Maxwell    of    New    York 

MINIMUM   COST    OF    CARRYING    OUT     THE    RE- 
COMMENDATIONS   MADE    BY   NEW   YORK 
CITY'S  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS 
IN  THE  ANNUAL  REPORT  FOR   THE 
YEAR    ENDING    JULY    3 1st,    1907 


Dr.  TILDSLEY'S 
LIST  NUMBER 


7 

8  (I  to  3) 
8  (4  to  5) 

II 

13 

14 

15 

16. 

17 

18 
Omitted  by 
Dr.  Tildsley 

19 
20 


22 
23 

24 
25 

26 


Salaries 

Salaries 

Building 

Salaries 

Buildings 

Salaries 

Salaries  (Old  law) . . 
Salaries  (New  law). 

Building 

Salaries 

Building 

Salaries 

Salaries 

Supplies 

Salaries 

Salaries 

Salaries 

Buildings 

Salaries 

Trade  school  inquiry 

399  Kindergartners. 

79  Workshops 

Salaries 

74  Kitchens 

Salaries 

Assembly  Hall 

Manual  Training  (?" 
Principal's  Home. . . 
Classes   for    Mental 

Defectives 

Provision  for  School 

Meals  at  cost 


IMMEDIATE      CAPITALIZED 
OUTLAY      1  OUTLAY 


22,800 

6,000 

1,600,000 

240,000 

8,000,000 

1,200,000 

18,000 

18,000 

500,000 

150,000 

1,400,000 

320,000 

50,000 

1,000,000 

3,300,000 

280,000 

40,000 

600,000 

60,000 

20,000 


279,300 

57,275 
55.000 
70,000 
52,000 
50,000 
25,000 
25,000 

12,000 

1,000,000 
120,450,375 


427,500 

150,000 

11,600,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

30,000,000 

450,000 

450,000 

500,000 

3,750,000 

1,400,000 

8,000,000 

1,250,000 

25,000,000 

82,500,000 

7,000,000 

1,000,000 

600,000 

1,500,000 

20,000 


7,000,000 

57,275 
1,375,000 
70, 000 
1,300,000 
50.000 
25,000 
25,000 

300,000 

1,000,000 

1190,799,775 


14 


City,  beside  a  radical  change  in  the  responsibilities  of  the  health 
and  educational  departments.  How  worth  while,  therefore,  a 
support  from  facts  that  will  enlist  lay  understanding,  sympathy, 
and  cooperation ;  how  dangerous,  also,  recommendations  not 
justified  by  experience." 

It  is  stated  as  a  "fact"  that  the  carrying  out  of  the  recom- 
mendations would  cost  $25,000,000.  There  is  in  addition  a 
$190,000,000  should  have  been  written.  I  excluded  the 
teachers'  salary  increase  because  on  page  132  of  the  super- 
intendent's report  he  says  that  while  salaries  should  be  in- 
creased, "I  understand  fully  that,  owing  to  financial  condi- 
tions in  this  city,  there  is  no  immediate  possibility  of  increas- 
ing teachers'  salaries  as  I  have  recommended." 

To  provide  permanently  for  this  $3,300,000  increase  $82, 
500,000   would    be    required.      If   the    educational   authorities 
had  examined  their   records   and  analyzed  their  experience 
they  would  have  discovered  that  excluding  teachers'  salary 
increases,  it  would  cost,  without  capitalizing  annual  cost,  a 
minimum  of  $20,450,375   to  carry  out   the   recommendations 
listed  by  the  rejoinder,  including  several  that  he  has  omitted. 
When  a  testator  makes  a  bequest  of  $500  a  year  to  a 
charitable  society,  he  sets  aside  $12,500.    His  interest  in  that 
charity  costs  him  not  the  annual  donation,  but  that  donation 
capitalized.     A  business   man  is  not  willing  to  add  $100  to 
an  employee's  salary  in  December  unless  able  to  add  $1,200  to 
the   salary  during  the   next  twelve   months,   and  unless   his 
business  warrants  setting  aside  $30,000  for  this  purpose,  or  a 
capital   that   will   produce    $1,200.     One   reason   why   school 
finance  has  required  a  Carnegie   Foundation  and  a  General 
Education  Board  for  higher  education,  and  why  the  United 
States  Commissioner  must  give  a  great  deal  of  thought  to 
financial  data  of  public  schools,  is  that  school  men  have  not 
fully  realized,   or  at  least  have  not  fully  confessed  to  their 
constituents,  that  when  they  ask  for  $50,000  a  year  they  ask 
their    communities    tp    make    a    permanent    investment    of 
$1,250,000. 
broad  insinuation  that  these  recommendations  are  not  based  on 
On  the  contrary,  there  was  a  direct  appeal  for  facts  to 
justify  and  expedite  the  adoption  of  such  recommendations 
as  facts  would  support, 
facts,  not  justified  by  experience.     Presumably  the  recommenda- 
tions referred  to  were  those  of  the  City  Superintendent's  Ninth 
Annual   Report  for  the  year  ending  July  31,    1907,   the  latest 
report  published  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the  article. 

15 


The  complete  recommendations  of  the  City  Superintendent  for 
Omitted  by  rejoinder:  (i)  399  additional  kindergartners 
(pp.  32,  99,  106)  requiring  for  salaries  alone  $279,300  or  a 
cost  of  $7,000,000;  (2)  79  workshops  and  74  kitchens,  cost 
not  estimated;  (3)  assembly  hall  and  manual  training 
plant  for  Curtis  High;  (4)  home  for  the  principal  of  parental 
school;  (5)  more  classes  for  mental  defectives,  which  require 
larger  salaries  for  teachers;  (6)  provision  for  school  meals 
at  cost. 

Will   the   superintendent   itemize     the   cost   of  these   six 
benefits  at  less  than  $10,000,000?      That  is  an  underestimate, 
as  results  are  sure  to  show, 
the  year  ending-  July  31,  1907,  were  as  follows: 

1.  The  consolidation  of  schools  whenever  possible. 

2.  An  increase  in  the  number  of  special  physical  training 
teachers  from  31  to  46. 

Superintendent  asked  for  50  (page  35).  19  additional  of- 
ficers, at  $900  the  first  year,  would  cost  $17,100.  The  third 
year  these  same  19  would  be  getting  $1,200  each,  and  would 
cost  $22,800.  The  fifth  year  they  would  cost  $28,500.  Accept- 
ing the  lowest  figure,  it  would  cost  $427,500  to  make  the 
increase;  accepting  the  highest  figure,  it  would  cost  $712,500. 

3.  Increase  in  the  number  of  special  teachers  of  music  and 
drawing. 

For  Brooklyn  only.  Number  desired  not  stated.  If  same 
proportion  as  Manhattan  and  Bronx,  six  needed.  This  would 
require  at  least  $6,000  the  first  five  years,  or  $150,000. 

4.  No  new  building  to  be  built  in  Manhattan  until  congestion 
in  Brooklyn  and  Queens  is  removed. 

Want  of  definite  information  probably  accounts  for  the 
failure  of  the  board  and  the  superintendent  himself  to  act 
upon  this  recommendation.  The  report  for  1908  asks  for 
new  buildings  in  five  Manhattan  districts.  It  also  says  Man- 
hattan's attendance  is  practically  stationary  (p.  27)  although 
2,608  greater  than  for  1907.  Within  a  few  weeks  a  building^ 
has  been  recommended  for  district  No.  9  to  cost,  with  equip- 
ment and  site,  about  $700,000. 

5.  Four  large  schools  in  Long  Island  City  to  be  built  to  meet 
the  growth  of  population  due  to  the  opening  of  the  Williamsburg 
bridge  and  Pennsylvania  Railroad  tunnels. 

Will  the  educational  authorities  state  what  they  proposed 

to  spend  for  these  schools,  for  sites  and  buildings,  particularly 

whether   they    expected     to    spend    less   than    $1,600,000?      I£ 

"large"   means    1,000   sittings,   my    estimate  is  too   great;   if 

16 


"large"  means  over  2,000,  my  estimate  is  conservative.  Teach- 
ers' salaries  for  8,000  pupils  would  be  over  $240,000  a  year, 
representing  a  capital  of  $6,000,000. 

6.  New  schoolhouses  for  the  forty  thousand  children  between 
the  ages  of  six  and  eight  not  now  in  school  according  to  the 
Police  Census. 

Did  the  board  of  education  expect  to  spend  less  than 
$10,000,000  on  buildings,  sites  and  equipment?  At  $200  per 
sitting,  the  cost  would  be  but  $8,000,000;  at  $30  per  child  for 
instruction,  the  cost  would  be  $1,200,000,  a  capital  outlay  of 
$30,000,000.  Of  course,  many  of  the  children  can  be  provided 
for  without  building  new  schoolhouses;  how  many,  the  school 
report  should  show.  If  housing  must  be  provided  for  40,000 
children  distributed  throughout  the  city,  it  would  cost  more 
than  $200  per  child  to  provide  the  proper  distribution  of 
grade  sittings.  Instruction  would  cost  $1,200,000  the  first 
year. 

7.  To  make  the  Compulsory  Education  Law  to  apply  to  chil- 
dren between  six  and  eight. 

Twenty  additional  truant  officers,  at  the  minimum  of  $900, 
would  cost  $18,000,  representing  $450,000.  In  three  years, 
these  20  men  would  be  costing  $1,200  each,  or  $24,000,  repre- 
senting $600,000.  This  does  not  provide  for  additional  offi- 
cers to  attend  to  children  of  three  ages  added. 

8.  Recommends 

(i)   An  addition  to  the  Boys'  High  School. 

(2)  Completion  of  Erasmus  Hall  High  School. 

(3)  Addition  to  the  Girls'  High  School. 

Was  it  planned  to  spend  less  than  $500,000  for  these  three 
additions?  Or  less  than  $150,000,  on  teachers'  salaries? 
These  two  represent  an  immediate  outlay  of  $650,000  and  a 
capital  of  $4,250,000. 

(4)  New  high  school  in  crowded  Ridgewood  section. 

(5)  New  high  school  in  Bay  Ridge  section. 

Was  it  planned  to  spend  less  than  $1,400,000  for  sites 
and  buildings  for  these  two  high  schools?  The  last  three  in 
Brooklyn  cost  $2,246,000;  one  of  them  $924,290. 

9.  The  high  school  departments  of  the  Normal  College  and 
the  City  College  to  be  placed  under  control  of  the  Board  of 
Education. 

10.  That  high  school  buildings  be  kept  open  until  five  o'clock 
every  afternoon  and  on  Saturday  mornings  until  noon  for  the 
assistance  of  pupils. 

17 


How  long  can  pupils  be  assisted  afternoons  and  Saturday 
mornings  without  expense  as  promised  on  next  page? 

11.  Summer  sessions  of  high  schools  for  deficient  pupils. 

Estimated  on  next  page  at  $50,000  per  year,  or  $1,250,000. 
When  compared  with  description  of  what  is  to  be  accom- 
plished (page  83  of  the  superintendent's  report)  this  sum  is 
obviously  too  small. 

12.  Permanent  tenure  for  Board  of  Examiners. 

13.  A  stable  income  for  the  Special  Fund. 

The  superintendent  surely  did  not  have  in  mind  a  special 
fund  tax  that  would  provide  for  what  the  board  has  been 
given  annually,  instead  of  what  it  has  asked  for.  The  differ- 
ence in  these  two  sums  for  1909  is  $1,070,529.06.  Did  the 
superintendent  have  in  mind  a  gain  of  less  than  $1,000,000  a 
year?    To  provide  this  would  require  a  capital  of  $25,000,000. 

14.  Readjustment  of  teachers'  salaries. 

Would  require  a  capital  investment  of  over  $82,500,000. 

15.  The  foundation  of  a  department  of  school  hygiene. 

To  make  good  on  the  superintendent's  outline,  pp.  133-143, 
will  cost  over  $560,000  annually,  a  capital  outlay  of  $15,000,- 
000.  The  salary  of  a  nurse  is  $900  of  a  physician,  $1,200.  If 
cost  of  supervision,  of  clerical  work,  of  supplies  and  inci- 
dentals be  included,  the  foregoing  estimate  is  low.  In  the 
table  this  item  is  given  at  $280,000. 

16.  Certain  amendments  to  the  compulsory  education  law. 

Three  years  to  the  compulsory  school  age  and  sixty  days 
to  the  compulsory  school  year,  and  to  compel  parents  to  pro- 
vide for  proper  mental  and  physical  needs  of  their  children. 

These  include,  (a)  adding  three  years  to  the  compulsory 
school  age,  and  (b)  60  days  to  the  compulsory  school  year, 
and  (c)  laws  to  compel  parents  to  provide  for  proper  mental 
and  physical  needs  of  their  children.  On  the  next  page,  the 
rejoinder  says  this  "would  simply  add  the  cost  of  enforcing 
the  law" — 'simply'  meaning  capital  outlay  of  from  $1,000,000 
to  $2,000,000,  a  minimum  annual  expenditure  of  $40,000. 

17.  Erection    of    one-story    buildings    for    blind    and    crippled 
children,  as  in  Chicago  and  London. 

Five,  page  154.  Had  the  superintendent  in  mind  to  spend 
less  than  $1,500,000  on  the  erection  and  equipment  of  these 
buildings,  the  purchase  of  sites,  the  conduct  of  classes?  If 
he  will  put  in  black  and  white  what  he  purposes  to  spend,  this 
will,  I  believe,  be  found  a  conservative  estimate. 

18.  The  formation  of  a  committee  to  study  trade  schools. 

The  rejoinder  estimates  $1,000  which  is  only  another  way 
of  saying  that  the  inquiry  is  not  worth  while.  Evidently,  when 
it  comes  to  travelling  and  inquiries,  our  educators  can  make 
a  dollar  go  farther  than  in  the  management  of  local  schools. 

18 


The  superintendent  asks  (page  146)  "that  as  many  members 
of  your  supervising  force  as  may  be  necessary  be  sent  to 
Europe  and  to  different  parts  of  this  country  to  make  a  thor- 
ough study  of  trade  schools." 

19.  Deficient  teachers  to  be  excused  with  pay  for  fifteen  after- 
noons to  take  special  work  in  training  schools,  as  in  Chicago. 

How  many  deficients  are  there?  Is  it  proposed  to  have 
this  work  done  without  cost  by  existing  teachers?  Will  teach- 
ers be  paid  for  their  extra  service?  How  long  will  there  be 
no  cost?  Will  no  substitutes  be  required  while  different 
teachers  are  away? 

These  are  the  recommendations  which  Mr.  Allen  says  will  cost 
$25,000,000  to  carry  into  execution.  He  offers  no  figures  in 
proof  of  this  astounding  statement.  He  evidently  expects  the 
The  burden  of  proof  is  never  on  the  citizen  who  asks  a 
question,  but  on  the  official  proponent  of  the  recommenda- 
tions. Writing  for  a  magazine  is  slightly  different  from 
writing  an  annual  report  to  give  an  account  of  one's  method 
of  spending  other  people's  money  and  supporting  one's  recom- 
mendations for  further  expenditure.  The  foregoing  figures 
show  that  my  statement  was  too  low.  It  has  brought  into 
the  open  our  educational  authorities,  with  the  misfortune, 
however,  that  a  principal  of  a  high  school,  instead  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools  or  an  officer  of  the  board,  signs 
his  name  to  the  attempt  to  minimize  the  cost  of  carrying 
out  the  superintendent's  recommendations.  By  circulating 
the  rejoinder,  however,  the  school  authorities  endorse  that 
attempt. 

My  moderation  is  astounding  and  reprehensible,  not  my 
estimate  of  $25,000,000.  Astounding  too  is  the  fact  that  the 
rejoinder  could  have  been  published  and  circulated  without 
our  educational  authorities,  discovering  that  the  minimum 
immediate  outlay,  counting  only  the  first  year's  additional 
salaries,  is  $21,060,000;  the  more  probable  figure  is  $25,000,000; 
while  the  continued  execution  of  the  recommendations  would 
require  a  capital  outlay  of  almost  $200,000,000. 
reader  to  accept  these  figures  on  the  authority  of  the  Secretary 

of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research,  an  unofficial  and  irrespon- 
sible body,  but  criticises  the  responsible  head  of  the  great  public 
school  system  for  expecting  people  to  adopt  any  one  of  his  plans 
if  he  does  not  present  statistical  proofs  for  every  statement  he 
makes.  "How  worth  while  a  support  from  facts !"  Of  these 
twenty  recommendations  Numbers  i,  4,  9,  would  actually  save 
money.  Numbers  10,  12,  13,  19  would  entail  no  extra  expense. 
See  preceding  remarks  after  each  item. 

19 


Numbers  2,  3,  5,  6,  8  call  for  expenditures  which  arise  from 
the  ordinary  growth  of  the  system  and  are  practically  of  a  routine 
This  is  begging  the  question.  I  said  recommendations,  not 
increase  for  new  and  unheard  of  experiments.  Whether  build- 
ing of  schools  should  be  discontinued  in  Manhattan,  whether 
four  large  schools  or  four  small  schools  should  be  erected 
in  Long  Island  City,  whether  new  school  houses  are  needed 
to  take  care  of  children  not  in  school,  are  questions  of  fact 
that  taxpayers  have  a  right  to  ask  proof  of  before  spending 
$10,000,000  and  setting  aside  $36,000,000. 

character.  Number  7,  the  modification  of  the  compulsory  school 
law,  entails  no  new  kind  of  expenditure,  but  merely  the  resulting 
increase  of  the  old.     Number  11  would  cost  approximately  $50,- 

Even  this  underestimate  means  not  $50,000  only  but  $50,- 
000  annually  or  $1,250,000.  Numbers  7  and  16,  as  shown  on 
page  12,  mean  simply  $76,000  annually,  or  $1,900,000. 

000.    Number  16  would  simply  add  the  cost  of  enforcing  the  law. 
Number  18  would  cost  less  than  $1,000.     There  are  left,  there- 
See  statement,  preceding  page, 
fore,  of  new  projects  costing  money: 

These  three  mean  a  capital  outlay  of  $90,000,000  and  a 
continuing  annual  cost  of  about  $4,000,000.  If  all  other  rec- 
ommendations refer  to  routine  which  must  happen  anyway, 
why  does  the  report  treat  them  as  recommendations  instead 
of  forecasts? 

Nowhere  did  my  article  mention  "new  projects  costing 
money."  On  the  contrary,  in  tabulating  375  recommenda- 
tions, I  said,  "Some  gravely  indict  present  methods  and  equip- 
ment; all  presume  experience  as  their  basis;  all  involve  the 
expenditure  of  energy,  and,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  ex- 
penditure of  money." 

(i)  The  increase  of  certain  teachers'  salaries  at  a  cost  of 
$3,300,000,  a  project  which  had  been  discust  by  the  Board  of 
Education  for  two  years  and  in  support  of  which  Superintendent 
Maxwell  gives  facts  and  figures  covering  ten  printed  pages,  of 
which  more  later. 

(2)  The  plan  for  one-story  buildings  for  blind  and  cripples 
based  on  the  experience  of  Chicago  and  London. 

(3)  The  formation  of  a  department  of  hygiene  and  the  trans- 
fer of  medical  inspection  from  the  Department  of  Health  to  the 
Board  of  Education,  a  project  discust  in  two  annual  reports  and 
supported  by  facts  and  figures  occupying  ten  pages  of  the  report. 

As  shown  later,  the  project  was  not  properly  supported  by 
either  facts  or  figures. 


Where  are  Mr.  Allen's  facts  to  substantiate  his  $25,000,000 
estimate,  and  where  the  justification  for  his  inference  that  the 
City  Superintendent's  recommendations  were  not  based  on  facts 
of  experience? 

Where  was  the  fact  instinct  of  our  school  authorities, 
that  they  did  not  look  before  they  asked  this  question? 

Mr.  Allen   further  makes  the  charge  in  his  article  that  the 
report  of  Superintendent  Maxwell  gives  no  facts  to  prove  the 
necessity   of   transferring   medical   inspection   to   the   Board   of 
This    demand    was    based    on    no    authoritative    record. 
My  article  reads,  "Although  New  York  had  furnished  inspira- 
tion to  other  cities  through  magazines  and  press  articles,  the 
school  report  shows  not  a  statement  of  fact,  not  a  table  of 
work   done."    The   next   report   for   1908   contains   tables   of 
work  done,  (pp.  138-139).  Similar  information  might  have  been 
presented  in  the  report  under  discussion. 

Education,  or  for  passing  a  law  compelling  parents  to  secure 
medical  service  for  their  children,  yet  on  page  109  of  the  1906 
My  article   referred   only  to   the   1907   report.     The   re- 
joinder misquotes  and  misrepresents  the  irrelevant  1906  re- 
port, 
report,  the  statement  is  made  that  in  one  school  out  of  150  cases 
of  adenoid  growth  in  the  throat  the  parents  of  over  seventy  of 
these  afflicted  children  would  do  nothing  to  procure  their  relief. 
Superintendent's   qualification    of   the   foregoing,   p.    no: 
"True,  they  gave  their  consent  to  have  the  necessary  opera- 
tions performed  in  school  by  a  prominent  surgeon  attached  to 
a  large  hospital,  who  kindly  volunteered  for  the  work." 

There  was  no  mobbing  of  these  physicians.    On  the  con- 
trary, the  operations  were  followed  by  an  ice  cream  party, 
and  later  on  physicians  of  the  Board  of  Health  who  proposed  to 
relieve  the  children  were  mobbed  by  these  parents.    On  page  442 
The  mobbing  was  of  other  schools,  at  another  time,  by 
other  parents.    At  least  one  riot  was  stopped  by  a  wise  prin- 
cipal who   thought  of  singing   instead   of  throwing   mud  at 
the  health  department, 
of  the  same  report  it  is  shown  that  during  the  year  1906  but 
78,401  pupils  out  of  a  total  register  of  559,000  were  examined 
by  the  physicians  of  the  health  departments;  that  not  a  single 
pupil  in  the  high  schools  was  examined,  while  in  the  report  for 
High  schools  are  not  mentioned.     It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  although  the  schools  had  physical  directors  and 
the  physical  contact  with  needy  children,  the  department  of 
health,  to  its  credit,  took  the  initiative  in  calling  the  atten- 


tion  of  educators  to  physical  needs  that  a  proper  system  of 
reporting  would  have  disclosed  many  years  before. 

The  school  authorities  could  at  any  time  in  four  years 
have  made  a  serviceable  eye  test  for  all  pupils.    There,  as  in 
the  teaching  and  practice  of  hygiene,  the  gap  between  their 
knowing  and  their  doing  is  greater  than  the  efficiency  gap  of 
the  health  department  referred  to  by  the  rejoinder. 
1907,  page  141,  it  is  stated  that   in  only  248  schools  were  any 
inspections  made  and  that  but  one-third  of  the  pupils  in  these 
Instead  of  one-third,  less  than  one-fifth  of  the  children 
were  examined  that  year. 
schools  were  examined.     In  addition  to  the  ten  pages  contributed 
by  Dr.  Maxwell  on  this  subject,  Dr.  Gulick  in  the  report  of  the 
Director  of  Physical  Training,  Appendix  J  of  the  Report  of  the 
City  Superintendent,  offers  some  five  pages  of  reasons,  based  on 
his  own  experience  and  that  of  his  teachers,  why  a  special  depart- 
ment of  hygiene  should  be  established. 

A  line  to  line  reading  of  the  trifle  over  three  pages  (421- 
424)    of   Dr.    Gulick's  discussion   of   this   subject   shows   that 
he  does  not  have  in  mind  the  department  of  school  hygiene 
desired  by  the    superintendent.    Far   from  making  an  argu- 
ment for  transferring  the  work  of  the  department  of  health 
to  the  department  of  education,  Dr.  Gulick  asks  for  one  medi- 
cal officer  and  says  on  page  424,  "I  do  not  contemplate  the 
assigning  of  this  officer  to  duties  that  are  now  being  perform- 
ed by  the  department  of  health." 
During  an  eleven  years'  experience  in  the  high  schools  of  this 
city,  in  three  different  high  schools,  the  writer  has  known  of  but 
one  occasion  where  a  physician  of  the  health  department  was  in 
the  building,  and  that  was  for  the  purpose  of  vaccination. 

A  recent  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  supports 
the  contention  of  Dr.  Maxwell's  report:  "Examining  the  same 
children  one  inspector  (of  the  Board  of  Health)  found  that 
thirteen  children  were  suffering  from  pulmonary  disease,  another 
inspector  found  only  two ;  one  inspector  found  twenty-eight  chil- 
dren suffering  from  malnutrition,  another  only  ten." 

The  report  referred  to  is  "A  Bureau  of  Child  Hygiene: 
Co-operative  Studies  and  Experiments  by  the  Department  of 
Health  of  the  City  of  New  York  and  the  Bureau  of  Munici- 
pal Research."  41  pp.  plus  illustrations  and  inserts.  On  p.  26 
it  says,  "The  obstacles  to  removing  physical  defects  are  not 
primarily  those  of  unwillingness  of  parents."  As  my  article 
stated,  "the  parents  of  96  per  cent,  of  1400  children  in  3  dif- 
ferent districts  of  New  York  City  promised  to  act  promptly 
when  told  the  reason  for  acting."  The  department  of  health 
at  once  reorganized  its  school  work  and  established  a  bureau 
22 


of  child  hygiene,  with  a  program  bound  to  succeed  if  school 
officials  co-operate  and  publish  results.  At  the  time  the 
rejoinder  was  written  about  60  per  cent,  of  the  children  ex- 
amined this  school  year  and  found  to  have  defects  had  re- 
ceived treatment.  Instead  of  mentioning  this  fact,  the  re- 
joinder harks  back  to  1906,  when  the  work  was  still  experi- 
mental, and  when  the  school  authorities  were  talking  of  free 
school  meals  rather  than  of  removing  physical  defects  and 
educating  parents. 

The  criticism  is  further  made  in  the  article  that  New  York 
gives  but  part  of  her  per  capita  cost  of  education.  This  is  not 
a  criticism  but  a  quibble.  The  reason  why  the  per  capita  cost 
is  not  mathematically  accurate  is  that  it  does  not  pay  to  esti- 
mate and  charge  to  the  different  activities  the  exact  share  of 
running  expenses  that  should  fall  to  each  activity,  as  the  super- 
intendent's salary,  the  janitor's  salary,  the  cost  of  lighting  and 
heating  where  the  building  is  used  jointly  by  day  and  evening 
schools,  for  recreation  centers  and  for  examinations,  public  lec- 
tures, etc.  Such  criticism  is  hardly  worthy  of  a  scientific  ob- 
server who  claims  to  be  desirous  of  improving  school  reports. 

Many  other  cities  find  it  worth  while  and  easy  to  publish 
the  right  per  capita.  The  U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Education 
and  the  U.  S.  Census  Bureau  consider  that  it  pays  to  charge 
to  different  activities  their  share  of  running  expenses,  and 
this  year  are  ascertaining  for  all  cities  of  30,000  and  over 
what  different  school  activities  cost.  The  per  capita  pub- 
lished in  the  superintendent's  report  and  used  by  him  at  pub- 
lic hearings  injures  the  cause  of  education  by  under-stating 
the  cost  of  high  schools  and  many  other  features,  by  over- 
stating the  cost  of  elementary  schools,  and  by  misrepresent- 
ing the  relative  cost  of  City  College,  Normal  College,  and 
high  schools. 

On  page  119  of  this  article  we  learn  that  "New  York's  Charter 
Revision   Commission  has   not   thought  it  strange  or   inefficient 
to  have  recommended  changes  in  the  school  charter  without  read- 
ing school  reports."     The  inference  is  that  this  is  due  to  the 
This  sentence  followed  the  statement  "questions  of  local 
policy  and  taxation  are   seldom  settled   (in  any  part  of  the 
United  States)  with  reference  to  facts  presented  in  school  re- 
ports." 
futility  of  the  report.     The  facts  are  that  the  Charter  Revision 
Committee  proposes  to  recommend  sweeping  changes  in  the  edu- 
cational features  of  the  charter,  not  only  without  reading  the 
leport  of  the  City  Superintendent  but  also  without  attempting 
to  get  the  point  of  view  of  the  seventeen  thousand  teachers  and 

23 


supervisors  concerned.     Because  of  their  belief  in  the  general 
The  commission  may  not  have  attempted  wisely  because 
it  could  not  get  uncolored,  impersonal  evidence;  but  it  did  at 
least  attempt  to  get  the  point  of  view  of  teachers  and  super- 
visors and  all  facts  which  they  possessed. 

The  rejoinder's  assertions  and  implications  regarding  the 
Charter  Revision  Commission  (not  'Committee')  show  the 
extreme  difficulty  of  discussing  any  school  question  in  New 
York  City  impersonally  and  with  reference  only  to  facts, 
principle  of  local  self-government,  without  regard  to  the  merits 
of  this  particular  case,  in  the  face  of  the  almost  unanimous  oppo- 
sition of  the  teaching  force  of  the  city,  they  have  recommended 
the  abolition  of  the  State  protection  of  salaries,  a  system  which, 
in  the  judgment  of  all  competent  observers,  has  given  to  New 
York  City  a  class  of  teachers  far  superior  to  that  which  she  had 
under  the  local  control  of  salary  system.  And  this  vital  change 
is  being  pushed  thru  by  the  Charter  Revision  Committee  without 
a  hearing,  with  little  knowledge  of  the  facts  and  with  the  evident 
approval  of  the  writer  of  the  article.  A  reading  of  the  last  report 
of  the  City  Superintendent,  in  which  this  matter  was  fully  dis- 
cust,  might  have  saved  them  from  this  unwise  step. 

The  question  of  State  protection  is  not  "fully  discussed." 
The  report,  p.   114,  does  say,  "It  put  an  end  to  an  almost 
intolerable  position  with  regard  to  teachers'  salaries.    *    *    * 
I   sincerely  trust  that  it  will  be  maintained  on  the   statute 
book   as   a   defence   against   capricious   changes   in   teachers' 
salaries  until  something  better  is  provided." 
In  the  same  paragraph  we  are  told  "How  reports,  when  used, 
may  influence  local  policy  is  illustrated  in  New  York  whose  fiscal 
officers  have  recently,  without  discredit  to   themselves,  cut  the 
educational    budget    from   $33,000,000   to   $27,500,000,    because 
special  reports  to  the  budget  committee  showed"  certain  irregu- 
larities which  will  be  discust  later  in  this  article. 

The  special  reports  referred  to  were  probably  those  made  by 
the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  which  thus,  thru  its  secretary, 
claims  the  credit  for  the  $5,500,000  reduction  made  "without 
discredit  to  the  officials."  Since  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Re- 
Please  see  statement  by  the  Bureau's  trustees, 
search  claims  the  credit  it  must  be  held  responsible  for  the 
great  injury  to  the  educational  system  wrought  as  a  result  of 
its  activity.  The  article  further  states  that  "when  given  a 
chance  at  the  taxpayers'  hearing  to  defend  their  estimates,  school 

24 


officers  were  without  data  to  justify  their  protests."     It  is  hard 
Instead    I    should    have    written    "school    officers    were 
silent."      I    did    not    want    to    imply    that    officials    of    the 
board    of    education,    possessing    evidence    that    injury    was 
about  to  be  done  the  schools,  would  sit  silent, 
to  reaHze  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Re- 
search does  not  know  that  this  statement  is  not  true.     At  the 
taxpayers'  hearing  no  attack  on  the  educational  budget  was  made, 
hence  there  was  no  occasion  to  make  any  public  defense.     What 
At  the  hearing  on  the  tentative  budget,  the  above  reduc- 
tion was  announced  in  cold  type.    For  several  hours  the  board 
of  estimate  listened  to  different  city  officials  protest  against 
reductions  in  their  budget  estimates.    The  only  occasion  for 
a  public  defence  was  that  the  mayor  asked  if  they  had  any- 
thing to  say.     No  attack  from  outside  would  have  been  per- 
mitted, because  the  citizens'  hearing  was  closed.    So  flagrant 
was  their  failure  that  the  Globe   publicly  criticised  them  for 
not  having  taken  advantage  of  this  opportunity.     Effort  was 
made  to  bring  secret  influence  to  bear  upon  flscal  officers, 
even  though  the  occasion  did  not  justify  public  explanation, 
are  the  facts?     Of  the  $5,500,000  asked  for  and  not  granted, 
$3,300,000  was  for  a  special  increase  of  the  salaries  of  certain 
This  figure  was  $3,273,000,  and  includes  salary  increases 
for  numerous  extensions  of  service  not  granted. 
large  classes  of  teachers.     For  two  years,  this  matter  of  the  in- 
adequate  salaries   paid   to   certain   classes   of   teachers   had   en- 
gaged public  attention,  columns  had  been  written  about  it  in  the 
newspapers,  it  had  even  occupied  weeks  of  the  time  of  the  State 
Weeks  of  agitation  publicly  condemned  by  the  superinten- 
dent of  schools  and  by  the  board  of  education,  and  by  the 
writer  of  the  rejoinder.    The  facts  used  in  this  agitation  are 
still  in  controversy. 
Legislature,  and  the  veto  of  the  Governor  alone  had  prevented 
a  large  increase  for  certain  of  these  teachers.    The  City  Superin- 
tendent had  devoted  twenty  pages  of  his  1907  report  to  this  sub- 
These  twenty  pages  were  devoted,  not  to   the  proposi- 
tion before  the  board  of  estimate  last  fall,  but  against  the 
proposition    of    equal    pay    for    equal    work.     In  the  pages 
that  are  relevant  to  a   proper  salary  schedule   (130-132)   he 
nowhere  mentions  the  figure  $3,300,000.   On  page  132  he  says 
the  city's  finances  do  not  permit  an  immediate  increase. 
ject.     A  special  committee  of  the  Board  of  Education  had  after 
long  deliberations  twice  recommended  these  increases  amounting 
to  $3,300,000  to  the  Board  of  Education  and  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation had  in  turn  twice  asked  the  Board  of  Estimate  for  the 
money.     Every  member  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  had  received 

25 


from  the  various  associations  of  teachers  interested  complete 
statements  of  the  reasons  making  necessary  the  increase  asked 
for,  and  in  addition  to  this  in  September  of  both  years  represen- 
For  1908  this  was  $3,129,000,  again  including  salary  in- 
creases for  a  number  of  extensions  of  service  not  granted, 
tatives  of  these  associations  h^d  made  representations  in  person 
to  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Estimate,  and  the  special  com- 
mittee of  the  Board  of  Education  on  the  readjustment  of  teachers' 
salaries  had  consulted  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Estimate. 

The  superintendent  criticised  the  Davis  Law  (p.  114)  be- 
cause "drawn  up  by  a  legislative  committee  after  conference 
only  with  representatives  of  different  teachers'  organizations, 
and  without  reference  to  an  harmonious  underlying  scheme 
or  plan."  Far  from  approving  this  salary  schedule,  more  than 
half  the  teachers  actively  opposed  it,  which  fact  was  well 
known  to  all  schoolmen.  The  facts  necessary  to  a  proper  de- 
termination of  teachers'  salaries  are  still  in  controversy,  and 
only  recently  Mayor  McClellan  appointed  a  committee  con- 
sisting of  Joseph  H.  Choate,  Prof.  J.  B.  Clark  and  William 
C.  Brown,  president  of  the  New  York  Central,  to  get  facts! 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  had  the  panic  of  1907  not  come 
just  when  it  did,  the  Board  of  Estimate  would  have  granted 
the  $3,300,000  asked   for  and  the  teachers  would  now  be  en- 
joying  the   increased   salary.      In   October,    1908,   the   Board   of 
No,  not  "generally  conceded."    This  is  some  inside  infor- 
mation which,  of  course,  taxpayers  ought  to  have  possessed 
in  1907,  and  authority  for  which  statement  it  is  fair  now  to 
ask   of   the    educational    authorities.     The    figure    should   be 
$3,128,567,  again  including  salary  increases  for  extensions  of 
service. 
Education  a  second  time  asked  for  $3,300,000  for  the  increase 
of  teachers'  salaries,  but  the  continuance  of  the  bad  times  and 
the  fear  of  too  greatly  increasing  the  tax  rate  caused  the  second 
And  because  its  principle  was  strongly  opposed  by  more 
than  half  the  teachers,  and  the  public  left  in  the  dark  as  to 
the  facts, 
refusal  of  the  amount  asked  for.     Tho  the  total  budget  was  in- 
creased from  $143,000,000  to  $154,000,000,  the  teachers,  as  usual. 
What  possible  excuse  is  there  for  saying  $143,000,000  in- 
stead of  $143,572,000,  and  $154,000,000  instead  of  $156,545,000? 
If  "nearest  millions"  almost  explains  the  first,  how  about  the 
$2,545,000  shortage  in  the  second?     Not  until  we  have  ade- 
quate accounting  and  reporting  will  the  public  know  whether 
all  school  business  is  conducted  with  such  inaccuracy  as  char- 
acterizes this  rejoinder,  on  which  several  of  the  school  sys- 
tem's highest  priced  employees  and  officers  collaborated. 

26 


were  the  ones  to  suffer  the  cut.  Whether  the  refusal  of  these 
increases  was  a  credit  or  discredit  to  the  Board  of  Estimate  is  a 
matter  of  opinion,  but  the  cutting  out  of  this  item  was  not  due, 
as  Mr.  Allen  states,  to  the  failure  of  the  Board  of  Education  to 
present  properly  the  reasons  for  the  increase  in  its  budget.  The 
Auditor  of  the  Board  of  Education  had  prepared  a  printed  bud- 
get of  458  pages,  showing  how  every  dollar  was  to  be  spent. 

This  statement  shows  where,  not  how,  every  dollar  is  to 
be  spent.  It  asks  for  so  many  things  that  the  board  of  edu- 
cation does  not  expect  to  get  and  does  not  want,  that  a  mere 
appearance  of  an  item  in  this  budget  can  hardly  be  said  "to 
present  properly  the  reasons  for  the  increase  in  its  budget." 

The  $3,300,000  was  applied  for  on  the  ground  that  with  the 
present  salaries  enough  capable  teachers  could  not  be  obtained 
Throughout     this     paragraph     the     rejoinder     confuses 
"enough"  with   "capable"  and   "enough  capable."     Refusing 
the  grant  of  $3,300,000  had  no  effect  whatever  upon  the  num- 
ber of  teachers  who  could  be  engaged.    That  large  sum  was 
requested  to  increase  the  salaries  of  existing  teachers,  plus 
amounts  necessary  to  increase  salaries  for  certain  teachers 
not  allowed.     The  results  here  enumerated  relate  chiefly  to 
the  number,  rather  than  to  the  quality  of  teachers.    Increas- 
ing the  salaries  of  the  present  teaching  force  of  the  DeWitt 
Clinton  High  School  will  not  release  any  funds  for  engaging 
regular  teachers  instead  of  substitutes.     Increasing  the  sal- 
aries  of   10,000  present   teachers   will   not   release   funds   to 
correct   "a   scarcity   of   teachers."     The   board   of  education 
has  had  repeated  opportunities  through  reports  and  public 
hearings  to  state  clearly  and  convincingly  to  taxpayers  what 
injuries,  if  any,  are  being  suffered  by  pupils  because  of  in- 
sufficient salaries  for  teachers,  or  because  of  insufficient  num- 
ber of  teachers.    The  most  recent  statement  from  educational 
authorities  is  that  of  the  rejoinder, 
to  carry  on  the  work  of  the  schools  properly.    As  a  consequence 
of  the  refusal  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  to  grant  this  amount, 
there  is  today  a  scarcity  of  teachers  and  the  pupils  suffer  thereby. 
The   present   appropriation  is  not  large  enough   to   enable   the 
Board  of  Education  to  fill  vacancies  as  they  arise.     The  schools 
are  forced,  therefore,  to  rely  on  substitutes ;  for  example,  one- 
fifth  of  the  teaching  force  of  the  De  Witt  Clinton  High  School 
is  made  up  of  substitutes ;  in  an  annex  to  another  high  school 
with  ten  teachers  the  only  regular  teacher  is  the  teacher  in  charge, 
and  this  same  scarcity  prevails  in  nearly  every  other  high  school. 
Will  Mr.  Allen  still  claim  for  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research 
the  credit  for  this  condition? 

27 


We  have  given  the  real  facts  as  to  $3,300,000  of  the  $5,500,000 
cut  out  of  the  budget  of  the  Board  of  Education.  What  are  the 
facts  as  to  the  remaining  $2,200,000  denied  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion "without  discredit  to  the  Board  of  Estimate"  as  a  result  of 
the  activities  of  this  same  Bureau?  Of  the  $5,500,000  applied 
for  but  not  granted,  $4,490,218.79  vi^as  to  be  a  portion  of  the 
general  fund  for  the  paying  of  teachers'  salaries,  and  the  remain- 
der was  a  part  of  the  special  fund  for  other  purposes  than  teach- 
ers' salaries.  Inasmuch  as  Mr.  Allen  confines  his  attack  to  the 
general  fund  with  which  the  City  Superintendent  is  more  imme- 
diately concerned,  hence  possibly  the  reason  for  the  attack,  we 
shall  take  up  the  deficiency  in  the  general  fund. 

Of  the  eight  times  specified  on  page  120,  where  the  board 
of    education    budget    had    misstated    the    facts,    four    re- 
ferred to  the  special  fund,  and  not  to  the  general  fund.    All 
placed  responsibility  squarely  upon  the  board  of  education. 
The  city  superintendent  is  not  mentioned. 
Deducting  $3,273,163.52,  the   amount  needed    for   salary  in- 
creases, from  the  $4,490,218.79  of  the  general  fund,  there  re- 
mains $1,217,055.27  cut  off  by  the  Board  of  Estimate  "without 
discredit  to  itself,"  therefore  by  reasonable  inference  unnecessar- 
ily applied  for  by  the  Board  of  Education. 

However  necessarily  applied  for,  these  items  should  have 
been  supported  by  such  facts  that  they  could  not  have  been 
cut  out,  if  such  facts  existed. 
The  chief  deductions  were: 

(i)  $168,340  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  elementary  schools. 
On  May  31,  1908,  when  estimates  were  made  for  the  budget 
of   1908-9  there   were  vacancies   in  elementary   schools   calling 
for  a   salary  fund  of  $168,340  for  the  year.     This   item  was 
asked  for  and  not  granted. 

(2)  $385,210.49   needed    for   additional    elementary   teachers. 
The  normal  yearly  increase  in  the  necessary  activities  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  owing  to  the  continuous  increase  in  popu- 
lation, is  about  5  per  cent.     This  therefore  naturally  entails  an 
For  the  last  four  years  ending  June,  1908,  the  average  in- 
crease in  register — all  schools — has  been  less  than  4  per  cent., 
having  been  4  3-10  per  cent,  in  1907-8  and  4  i-io  per  cent,  in 
1906-7;  in  average  attendance  much  less  than  4  per  cent.;  in 
net  enrollment  3.63  per  cent.    Impossible  to  learn  for  elemen- 
tary  schools   only.     But   it   would  be   smaller   than   for  all 
schools,  because  much  smaller  than  for  high  schools  (7.45) 
and  kindergartens  (11.06). 
approach  to  5  per  cent,  increase  in  the  amount  required  for  the 

28 


teachers'  salaries,  somewhat  less  than  5  per  cent.,  since  the 
new  teachers  will  receive  less  than  the  average  salary  of  those 
already  in  the  system. 

The  rejoinder  fails  to  compute  what  this  difference  is. 

The  result  would  go  far  to  explain  the  two  reductions  last 

mentioned. 

Allowing  the  5  per  cent,  increase  in  the 
fund  for  1907-8  of  $15,629,168,  we  have  $781,458.  The  Board 
applied  for  $762,460  and  received  but  $377,249.51,  an  amount 
less  than  was  needed  by  $385,210.49.  Adding  this  to  the  amount 
needed  to  fill  vacancies,  we  have  $553,550.49,  which  Mr.  Allen 
probably  regards  as  saved  to  the  City  of  New  York  since  the 
schools  are  running  without  the  necessary  increase  in  the  num- 
ber of  teachers.  This  is  the  usual  mistake  of  the  man  who  is 
not  familiar  with  the  actual  operation  of  schools.  We  save,  he 
thinks,  only  when  we  obtain  results  with  less  expenditure.    The 

Equal  results  with  less  expenditure — yes. 
cutting  off  of  this  $553,550.49  from  the  salary  fund  of  the  ele- 
mentary schools  means  ( i )  larger  classes,  60  or  more,  and  over- 
42,  not  60,  on  average  register,  a  trifle  over  30  per  teacher 
on  average  attendance,,  according  to  the  report  for  the  year 
ending  July  31st,  1908.     To  report  just  where  classes  of  60 
exist  is  an  easy  way  of  securing  more  funds, 
crowded  and  worn-out  teachers;    (2)    the  use  of  inexperienced 
substitutes  instead  of  regular  teachers.     The  pupils  get  poorer 
teaching  in  either  case.     Is  this  saving  the  city  money? 

(3)  $105,694  saved  in  the  salaries  of  high  school  teachers. 
The  amount  asked  for  the  general  fund  for  high  schools  was 
$2,398,951.  The  Board  of  Estimate  granted  $2,293,256.99,  a 
deficiency  of  $105,694.  The  amount  asked  for  was  based  on  the 
normal  increase  in  registration  which  from  1906-7  to  1907-8  was 
from  22,931  to  25,264,  or  10.2  per  cent.,  whereas  the  increase  in 
the  registration  of  February,  1909,  over  February,  1908,  is  from 
28,209  to  34,363,  an  increase  of  22  per  cent.  The  high  schools 
are  suffering  from  a  double  difficulty  as  the  result  of  these  re- 
ports to  the  Board  of  Estimate:  First,  the  failure  to  raise  sal- 
aries has  cut  off  the  supply  of  candidates  for  positions  in  the  high 

Cut  down  from  what  to  what? 
schools ;  secondly,  the  scaling  down  of  the  estimate  to  the  amount 
of  $105,000   has   made   it   impossible   to   secure   the   additional 
teachers  needed   for  the   increased  registration  of  pupils.     The 
result  is  again,  as  in  the  elementary  sdhools,  too  large  classes, 

29 


If  these  assertions  can  be  proved  and  traced  to  budget 
cuts,  it  will  be  desirable  but  new  information  to  New  York 
City.  The  average  number  of  pupils  to  teachers  in  high 
schools,  based  on  average  register,  is  23;  based  on  average 
attendance,  20.  If,  indeed,  elementary  schools  have  classes 
of  60,  is  there  not  perhaps  a  trifle  margin  of  increase  in  high 
school  pupils  per  teacher  without  serious  injury  to  education? 

too  many  teaching  periods,  the  use  of  untrained  substitutes, 
sometimes  no  teacher  for  days  at  a  time,  with  the  resulting  loss 
to  the  pupil.  If  the  force  of  teachers  in  the  De  Witt  Clinton 
High  School  be  cut  down  one-half,  we  could  still  keep  the  school 
open,  but  we  should  not  be  teaching  the  boys. 

Fourthly,  $149,000  decrease  in  the  fund  for  special  teachers. 
The  Board  of  Education  asked  $679,913  for  teachers  of  special 
branches;  they  received  $530,915,  a  deficiency  of  $149,000;  an- 
other saving,  but  at  whose  expense? 

At  present  there  are  but  thirty-one  teachers  of  physical  train- 
ing for  the  forty-six  school  districts, — that  is  one  to  452  teachers. 
The  Board  asked  for  one  to  each  district,  46  in  all.     Even  then 
The  estimate  for   1909    (pp.   62-63)    asks  not  for  46  but 
for  20  women  teachers  of  physical  training  and  9  men,  a  total 
of  29.    If  failure  to  grant  the  additional  appropriations  means 
that  "work  is  languishing  and  gymnasiums  are  not  used  as 
they  should  be,"  that  fact  is  not  brought  out  in  the  report 
of  the  city  superintendent  of  schools  for  last  year,  dated  De- 
cember 31st,  1908,  more  than  two  full  months  after  the  al- 
lowance for  physical  training  teachers  was  announced.     The 
summary   of   recommendations   does   not   mention   this   need 
(pp.  162-163) ;  nor  is  this  condition  divulged  on  pages  431  to 
439,  signed  September  30th,  1908,  by  Dr.  Gulick. 

each  special  teacher  of  physical  training  would  still  be  responsible 
for  the  physical  training  of  305  classes.  The  result  of  the  failure 
to  grant  the  additional  appropriation  is  that  the  work  is  languish- 
ing and  gymnasiums  are  not  used  as  they  should  be.  In  like 
manner  additional  teachers  of  shop  work  and  cooking  who  were 
asked  for  were  cut  off,  and  several  shops  and  kitchens  which 
were  erected  during  the  year  are  lying  idle  for  want  of  teachers. 
Additional  special  teachers  in  drawing  are  needed  in  Brook- 
lyn and  Queens,  where  the  area  of  the  districts  is  large  and 
where  there  are  many  small  schools  lying  far  apart,  and  where 
as  a  consequence  a  large  part  of  the  time  of  the  teachers  is  spent 

30 


in  going  from  school  to  school.    The  cutting  out  of  $149,000  has 

made  it  impossible  to  remedy  these  conditions. 

If  we  put  together  the  conditions  that  the  rejoinder  says 
resulted  from  a  reduction  of  this  $149,000,  we  are  astounded 
at  the  service  which  this  amount  would  have  bought.  No 
one  could  gather  from  the  superintendent's  report  for  1908, 
dated  December  31st,  1908,  two  full  months  after  these  bud- 
get reductions,  that  conditions  were  as  serious  as  they  are 
here  reported  by  a  high  school  principal.  Among  the  sum- 
mary of  recommendations  (p.  162)  no  mention  is  made  of 
these  conditions.  Under  the  heading  "Need  of  More  Kinder- 
gartens, Workshops  and  Kitchens,"  (p.  103  ff.)  these  condi- 
tions are  not  mentioned.  On  June  15th,  1909,  the  board  had 
a  balance  of  $180,233.25  in  its  trust  funds  available  to  correct 
such  conditions. 

(5)  An  appropriation  of  $4,920  was  asked  for  a  school  for  the 
blind ;  it  was  refused.  The  blind  are  as  yet  untaught.  Is  this  a 
credit  to  the  Board  of  Estimate? 

The  rejoinder  is  careful  to  say  "as  yet  untaught"  rather 
than  "as  yet  unprovided  for."  At  the  time  of  writing  the 
board  of  education  had  appropriated  $5,000  for  the  blind. 
Where  did  it  get  this  money?  The  Globe  said  next  day  "from 
other  appropriations." 

(6)  $16,950  was  asked  for  three  day  schools  for  truants,  to 
be  organized  on  the  model  of  the  disciplinary  school  in  P.  S. 
120,  which  has  proved  so  successful.  The  money  was  refused, 
and  the  chronic  cases  of  truancy  and  incorrigible  conduct  are 
still  wasting  the  time  of  the  teachers,  the  principals,  and  the  boys 
themselves  in  the  elementary  schools. 

Writing  December  31st,  1908,  no  mention  of  this  condi- 
tion is  made  by  the  city  superintendent.  Nothing  is  said 
about  it  in  recommendations.  The  rejoinder's  statement 
would  have  been  very  opportune  at  the  taxpayers'  hearings. 

(7)  The  allowance  for  evening  schools  was  decreased  $43,- 
000.     This  means  of  course  fewer  schools  this  year. 

$40,590,  not  $43,000.  (Estimate  p.  83;  Budget,  p.  60.)  Fewer 
schools  this  year  than  might  have  been,  not  fewer  schools 
than  last  year.  The  evening  high  appropriation  increased 
$13,400.     The  evening  elementary,  $7,300. 

(8)  Lastly  we  come  to  the  question  of  vacation  schools,  recrea- 
tion centers,  playgrounds,  and  baths.  The  Board  of  Education 
asked  for  $441,752.    It  received  $175,000,  which  was  $40,000  less 

So  far  as  anybody  could  tell  from  the  board  of  education 
budget,  there  was  no  serious  plan  to  spend  this  total.    There 

31 


was  no  expectation  of  getting  it.  The  budget  professed  to 
have  actually  organized  for  1909  activities  costing  over  $240,- 
000.  At  that  time  they  had  actually  organized  on  a  supposed 
basis  of  $215,000. 

than  the  amount  actually  spent  last  year.  The  Committee  of  the 
Board  of  Education  having  charge  of  these  activities  thought 
it  wise  to  treble  its  work  and  had  planned  with  these  additional 
funds,  if  granted,  to  open  every  playground  in  the  afternoon 
and  the  shops  and  kitchens  every  afternoon  and  every  Saturday 
morning.  The  additional  amount  asked  was  large,  but  the  benefit 
to  be  gained  was  very  great  in  keeping  tens  of  thousands  of 
children  off  the  streets  and  engaged  in  healthful  and  profitable 
pursuits.  If  the  city  is  too  poor  to  do  this,  then  the  failure  of 
the  Board  of  Estimate  to  grant  the  funds  asked  was  without  dis- 
credit to  them,  but  on  no  other  supposition. 

These  activities  are  potentially  too  valuable  to  be  based 
upon  misinformation  or  lack  of  information. 

School  officials  raised  a  hue  and  cry  about  an  alleged 
reduction  of  $40,000,  whereupon  numerous  newspaper  editor- 
ials were  written  under  the  impression  that  there  was  a  cur- 
tailment of  $40,000.  The  superintendent's  report  for  1908 
repeats  the  error,  as  did  the  board  of  education,  in  asking  for 
special  revenue  bonds  in  March  and  June,  1909.  Trust  funds 
have  been  available  this  year  as  last  for  these  purposes 
throughout  the  agitation  based  on  misstatements  of  fact. 
With  the  intention  of  using  these  trust  funds,  vacation 
schools,  etc.,  were  organized  beyond  the  budget  allowance. 

It  received  $184,504  or  $496  less  than  it  had  last  year, 
and  $28,162  less  than  it  actually  spent  last  year.  (Budget,  p. 
60,  $175,000;  p.  58,  $9,504.)  Far  from  trebling  its  work,  it 
wanted  to  add  10  to  its  27  vacation  schools,  6  to  its  95  vaca- 
tion playgrounds,  6  to  its  28  evening  recreation  centers.  Far 
from  wanting  to  open  every  playground  in  the  afternoon,  it 
asked  for  money  to  open  49.  The  budget  does  not  explain, 
says  nothing  about  shops  and  kitchens  every  afternoon  and 
every  Saturday  morning,  and  says  nothing  about  the  number 
of  children  who  would  be  benefited. 

For  five  years  attempts  have  been  made  to  stampede  the 
public  of  New  York  to  secure  funds  for  recreation  centers 
on  the  plea  that  vacation  schools  keep  children  off  the 
streets,  and  give  them  profitable  pursuits.  Assuming  that 
official  statements  from  the  department  of  education  were 
made  in  good  faith,  a  group  of  social  workers  appeared  be- 
fore the  board  of  estimate  and  apportionment  to  request 
funds  for  vacation  schools.  Dr.  E.  T.  Devine  had  charge  of 
the  hearing.  When  asked  by  Comptroller  Grout  what  as- 
surance could  be  given  that  if  additional  money  was  voted 

32 


for  vacation  schools  it  would  be  used  for  vacation  schools, 
Dr.  Devine  quoted  a  letter  written  by  the  then  president  of 
the  board  of  education,  Henry  N,  Tifft,  pledging  use  for  the 
purpose  named.    The  money  was  procured,  but  was  not  used 
for  the   purpose   named,  although   from  that   same   general 
fund  money  was  found  that  year  for  salary  increases  not 
mentioned  at  budget  time. 
It  has  been  shown  how  it  was  possible  for  the  Board  of  Esti- 
mate to  reduce  the  budget  of  the  Board  of  Education  by  the 
sum  of  $4,411,365,  and  what  the  consequences  have  been  and  are 
to  be  in  work  not  done.     Does  the  discredit  He  with  the  body  of 
trustees  of  the  pubhc  good  who  saw  the  need  and  asked  for  the 
funds  ?    Or  with  the  body  which  refused  the  funds  ?    Or  with  the 
body — the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research — which,  Mr.  Allen  in- 
sinuates, made  the  representations  that  led  to  the  refusal? 

Mr.  Allen  further  attempts  to  discredit  the  Board  of  Education 
by  charging: 

(i)  "That  year  after  year  the  Board  of  Education  in  its  esti- 
mates had  been  overstating  by  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars 
the  amount  needed  for  additional  teachers." 

On  May  22d,  I  asked  the  superintendent  of  schools  if, 
in  stating  the  cost  of  engaging  the  additional  teachers  neces- 
sary for  the  additional  registration,  the  board  of  education 
estimated  the  "saving  that  would  result  from  the  retirement 
of  higher  priced  teachers  who,  according  to  experience,  might 
be   expected  to   leave   the   system   during   1909,"   and  if   the 
board  of  education  in  its  estimate   for  the  year   1908   gave 
this  expected  reduction.     No  answer  to  date. 
An    impartial    investigation    of    the   budgets    laid    before   the 
Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  would   show  that  this 
statement  is  untrue.    The  fact  that  all  the  money  asked  was  not 
granted  is  no  proof  to  the  contrary.    On  the  other  hand,  the  fact 
that  at  no  time  since  1902  has  the  Board  of  Education  been  able, 
because  of  lack  of  funds,  to  fill  vacancies  in  high  schools,  elemen- 
tary schools,  and  kindergartens,  as  they  arise — that  the  vacancies 
made   and   the   new   classes   organized   between   December   and 
September  of  each  year  are  filled  for  the  most  part  by  substitutes 
until  the  first  of  October  or  November — and  the  further  fact  that 
the  Board  has  in  some  thousands  of  cases  been  unable  to  divide 
classes  of  abnormally  large  register,  while  each  year  the  appro- 
priation is  exhausted — are  proof  positive  that  the  appropriations 
have  been   insufficient  and  that  the  demands  of  the  Board  of 
Education  have  not  been  exorbitant. 

33 


The  appropriations  might  be  insufficient  and  the  aggre- 
gate demands  of  the  board  not  exorbitant,  and  it  still  be  true 
that  the  board  of  education  overstated  the  amount  required 
for  teachers  to  take  care  of  additional  registration. 

(2)  "That  funds  had  been  diverted  contrary  to  written  and* 
verbal  pledges."  In  making  this  charge  Mr.  Allen  does  not  state 
that  the  Board  of  Education  of  New  York  City  is  a  corporate 
body  of  trustees ;  that  it  has  no  legal  or  moral  right  to  bind  itself 
as  to  the  disposition  of  its  general  fund,  nor  has  any  other  body 
the  right  to  make  such  a  demand  upon  it ;  that  its  one  duty  is 
to  use  the  general  fund  intrusted  to  it  for  the  best  interests  of 
the  schools  of  New  York  City,  meeting  each  need  as  it  arises  as 
best  it  may  with  the  funds  at  its  command.  If  therefore  in  its 
judgment  it  seems  wise  to  transfer  $30,000  to  the  fund  for  vaca- 
tion schools,  it  is  not  only  its  right  but  its  duty  so  to  do.  It  and 
it   alone   is   responsible   to   the   people    for   the   conduct   of   the 

schools. 

If  the  necessity  be  conceded,  it  does  not  follow  that  the 

board  of  education  should  have  broken  its  pledges  rather 
than  go  to  the  board  of  estimate,  as  do  other  departments, 
requesting  authorization  to  depart  from  those  pledges. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  meet  on  common  ground  educators 
who  thus  flagrantly  proclaim  that  a  pledge  made  by  a  board 
of  education  is  not  binding  upon  it.  President  Winthrop  said, 
in  the  autumn  of  1907,  that  he  did  consider  a  pledge  made  by 
him  and  his  finance  committee  as  binding.  The  board  of 
estimate  voted  for  teachers'  salaries  last  year  $570,000 
more  than  the  three  mill  tax,  and  the  year  before  voted 
$652,000  more.  No  one  would  seriously  question  its  right 
to  impose  the  conditions  upon  which  it  shall  vote  an  excess 
over  the  compulsory  tax.  (In  May,  1909,  the  board  of  edu- 
cation denied  that  it  transferred  $30,000  from  other  parts 
of  the  general  fund  to  the  vacation  school  fund). 

(3)  "That  of  $18,000  given  for  additional  attendance  officers, 
only  $600  was  used  for  that  purpose."  This  was  simply  an  exer- 
cise of  the  Board's  rightful  discretion, — it  lacked  sufficient  funds 
to  pay  the  teachers'  salaries.  It  was  forced  to  take  $50,000 
from  the  High  School  Bonus  Fund  and  the  Training  School 
Trust  Fund.  To  further  make  up  the  deficiency  still  remaining, 
it  availed  itself  of  the  $17,400,  inasmuch  as  the  City  Superintend- 
ent had  nominated  only  five  new  truant  officers  late  in  the  year, 
in.  view  of  the  lack  of  funds  for  salaries  of  teachers  already  em- 

^    ^      '  The  board  of  education   did   not  avail  itself  of  $17,400, 

nor  is  it  true  that  at  the  time  he  refused  to  nominate  addi- 
tional truant  officers,  the  superintendent  did  so  because  of  a 

34 


"lack  of  funds  for  salaries  of  teachers  already  employed." 
We  have  already  seen  that  $28,000  was  transferred  for  recrea- 
tion centers,  etc.  What  reasons  were  actually  given  cannot 
be  proved  until  the  original  minutes  are  made  public. 

So  determined  was  the  apologist  to  make  out  a  case  that 
he  did  not  even  ascertain  how  much  was  spent  for  truant 
officers.  So  he  innocently  subtracts  $600  mentioned  by  me 
(the  case  August,  1908,  while  the  budget  was  being  dis- 
cussed). Evidently  his  informants  forgot  that  it  costs  some- 
thing to  pay  for  "only  five  new  truant  officers  late  in  the 
year." 

(4)  "That  $7,cxx)  given  to  increase  particular  clerical  salaries 
had  been  distributed  among  a  larger  number  late  in  the  year  so 
as  to  effect  an  annual  salary  increase  of  $20,000."  Mr.  Allen  in 
his  investigations  of  the  city  departments  must  have  discovered 
that  every  one  of  these  salary  increases,  after  being  adopted  by 
resolution  of  the  Board  of  Education,  had  then  to  be  approved 
later  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  the  Controller,  the  Board 
of  Aldermen,  and  the  Board  of  Estimate  before  the  increase  could 
be  added  to  the  pay-roll,  and  that  any  evasion  or  subterfuge  was 
impossible. 

Not  one  of  the  increases  referred  to  followed  that  course. 
It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  responsible  educators  could 
have  made  such  a  statement. 

(5)  "That  money  was  asked  for  the  rent  of  a  building  not 
used  since  1907." 

The  amount  involved  was  $600  in  a  budget  of  $33,000,000, 
and  was  due  to  a  mistake  of  a  clerk  in  adding  to  the  list  of  leases 
in  Richmond  one  that  had  expired.  Is  that  a  good  reason  for 
diminishing  a  budget  by  five  and  one-half  millions? 

Is  it  not  reason  enough  for  wondering  whether  the  board 
of  education  takes  steps  to  know  whether  information  sub- 
mitted to  it  by  its  subordinates  is  correct  or  incorrect,  and 
whether   the   budget   contains   a   number   of  other   plausible 
items  for  spending  which  the  board  of  education  has  no  plan? 
The  budget  receives  less  official  attention  than  did  this 
rejoinder  which  abounds  in  errors  that  certainly  discredit  the 
educational  authorities  more  than  could  any  statement  by  an 
"outsider." 

(6)  "That  it  was  costing  from  three  to  five  times  as  much 
per  pupil  or  per  room  for  repairs  of  furniture  and  pianos,  as 
well  as  of  buildings,  in  the  Bronx  and  Queens  as  in  Brooklyn 
and  Manhattan."  This  difference  in  cost  is  simply  an  illustration 
of  the  importance  of  taking  the  right  basis  of  comparison  between 
schools   and   boroughs.     The  number  of  pupils  or   numter  of 

35 


Per  Sitting 

Ordi-           Furni- 
nary             ture 
$.77             $.256 

Repair  Cost 
Total 

(    Si^   ^ 
Pianos      vltems/ 

$.008          $1.65 

.73 

.095 

.06 

I.16 

.88 

.144 

.005 

1.65 

3-33 

.359 

.006 

5-41 

rooms  is  not  the  proper  basis  for  repairs  but  the  relative  condi- 
tion of  the  buildings  in  the  various  boroughs.    In  the  Bronx,  but 
more  notably  in  Queens,  there  are  a  large  number  of  small  old 
Every  time  they  have  been  asked  to  explain  this  discrep- 
ancy, the  educational  authorities  point  out  small  old  build- 
ings, or  small  wooden  buildings.     President  Winthrop  gave 
this  explanation  last  year  to  the   Greater  New  York  Tax- 
payers' Conference,  which  assured  him  that  it  wished  to  sup- 
port all  justifiable  requests.    That  is  the  only  reason  that  has 
ever  been  assigned  publicly.     To  test  this  plausible  reason, 
the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  has  analyzed  the  repair 
cost  for  buildings  erected  since  1900  and  classified  as  brick- 
stone  in  the  board  of  education's  report  for  the  years  1906 
and  1907: 

Average 
Sittings 

Two  No. 

Years         Schools 

Manhattan    36,260  15 

Brooklyn    48,388  29 

The  Bronx i7,399  " 

Queens    5,576  6 

buildings  used  for  a  scattered  population.    The  pianos  and  furni- 
ture in  these  buildings  are  also  old.    This  condition  comes  down 
Again,    so    determined    to    defend  his  superiors  was  the 
apologist  that  no  analysis  was   made  for  pianos  and  furni- 
ture.   Therefore  a  plausible  defence,  although  the  facts  show 
that  I  was  wrong  in  stating  that  pianos  cost  from  3  to  5  times 
as  much  per  pupil  and  per  room.       My  article  was  written 
before  other  facts  were  available  than  the  President's  admis- 
sion of  a  discrepancy  due  to  "small  old  wooden  buildings."  Dr. 
Tildsley  had  access  to  records  for  3  full  years, 
from  the  days  prior  to  the  consolidation  into  Greater  New  York 
when  the  small  towns  and  villages  of  Queens  County  did  not 
provide  so  substantially  for  the  schools  as  did  the  more  densely 
populated  cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn.     Naturally  a  high 
school  in  New  York  of  fire-proof  construction  but  three  years 
old  and  registering  2,200  pupils,  needs  a  far  less  expenditure  for 
repairs  per  capita  than  four  high  schools  in  Queens  housed  in 
old  buildings  originally  used   for  grammar  schools  and  which 
combined  have  the  same  registry  as  the  one  Manhattan  school. 
Comparing   the    small,   old    Stuyvesant    High    School   in 
Manhattan,  brick-stone,  built  in  1865,  with  the  Bryant  High, 
brick-stone,  built  in   Queens   1902-05,   the   per   sitting  repair 
costs  are  reported  by  the  board  of  education  as  follows: 

Total 
Ordi-  Furni-  /"   Six   \ 

nary  ture  Pianos       vltems/ 

Stuyvesant   (small — old)    l4-7o        I0.47         I0.70  17-95 

Bryant  (new — larger)    8.34  1.17  .03  11.95 

36 


If  the  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Municipal  Research  had  been 
longer  in  New  York  and  familiar  with  the  condition  of  its 
schools,  he  would  not  make  the  mistake  of  indicting  the  Board  of 
Education  because  of  a  different  per  capita  cost  of  repairs  in  dif- 
ferent boroughs. 

The  indictment  against  the  board  of  education  is  not  be- 
cause of  a  different  per  capita  cost  of  repairs  in  different 
boroughs,  but  because  of  an  unexplained  difference,  a  mis- 
represented difference,  and  a  policy  that  permits  subordin- 
ates to  misstate  the  truth  or  to  make  sweeping  statements 
without  first  undertaking  to  learn  what  the  truth  is. 

So  much  may  be  said  in  answering  the  criticisms  of  the  New 
York  reports.     We  do  not  believe  that  Mr.  Allen  realized  the 
impression  that  would  be  made  by  his  article  upon  the  readers 
of  the  Educational  Review.    It  is  not  thinkable  that  Mr,  Allen 
deliberately  misstated   facts.     The  explanation  probably  lies  in 
Is    the   same    true    of   educators   who    prepared   the    re- 
joinder,   and   whose    own   records   refute   them   as   citations 
show? 
the  temperament  of  Mr.  Allen  and  the  exigencies  of  his  present 
position.     The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  has  acquired  on 
the  one  hand  an  over-developed  critical  faculty  of  a  rather  de- 
structive kind,  on  the  other  it  is  the  prophet  of  salvation  thru 
fact  seeking,  fact  collecting,  and  fact  arranging.     It  is  inclined 

Please  see  introduction  by  the  Bureau's  trustees, 
to  lay  the  emphasis  on  system  rather  than  men,  on  bookkeeping 
rather  than  personality,  and  therefore  Mr.  Allen  in  the  spirit  of 
his  institution  has  noted  slight  discrepancies,  has  enlarged  upon 
them,  has  expected  his  own  system  of  making  reports  to  be  fol- 
lowed, and  hence  has  given  us  this  most  pessimistic  article  on 
school  reports. 

It  is  not  thinkable  that  Mr,  Allen's  methods  will  ever  be 
substituted  for  straightforward  reports  in  New  York  or  any 
other  city.  Were  there  any  educational  system  whose  policy 
should  be  determined  by  substituting  mere  figures  for  the  wisdom 
of  experience,  by  forming  destructive  inductions  from  isolated 
facts,  and  by  accepting  half  truths,  more  mischievous  than  lies, 
for  whole  truths,  in  such  a  system  Mr,  William  H,  Allen's  system 
of  reporting  would  be  highly  appropriate. 

John  L,  Tildsley 

De  Witt  Clinton  High  School 
New  York 

37 

.'193918 


Will  the  writer  of  the  rejoinder  inform  the  public  if  the 
city  superintendent  of  schools,  or  the  president  of  the  board  of 
education,  or  the  auditor,  or  any  committee  chairman  saw  his 
article  before  submission  to  the  Educational  Review  f  Is  he 
wiUing  to  publish  their  names?  Is  he  willing  to  publish  the 
names  of  school  officials  who  either  gave  to  him  or  helped 
him  obtain  his  data?  Will  school  officials  send  this  reply 
to  those  who  received  reprints  of  his  article  from  school 
officials? 

CONCLUSION 

The  New  York  schools  can  not,  if  they  will,  prevent 
progress  in  school  reporting.  Other  cities  now  have  infor- 
mation which  we  are  not  able  to  obtain.  Our  own  taxpayers 
know  that  there  is  a  way  of  obtaining  information.  The 
facts  given  above  prove  that  the  writer  of  the  article  and 
any  superior  officers  who  may  have  collaborated  in  its  prep- 
aration, have  not  given  us  the  benefit  of  "the  wisdom  of  ex- 
perience" or  have  not  been  averse  to  "half  truths,  more  mis- 
chievous than  lies." 

The  time  is  not  far  distant  when  New  York's  system 
of  reporting  school  results  will  be  modern  and  efficient.  Then, 
the  methods  of  statesmanship,  instead  of  those  of  the  poli- 
tician and  of  agitation  will  be  employed,  by  subordinates 
wishing  advancement,  by  the  city  superintendent  of  schools 
or  by  the  board  of  education  itself  wishing  funds  for  justifi- 
able purposes. 

Nothing  could  more  clearly  establish  the  truth  of  every 
proposition  in  my  article  than  the  first  recommendation  in 
the  superintendent's  report  for  1908,  issued  just  about  the 
time  that  this  rejoinder  was  written,  namely,  that  "an  assist- 
ant trained  in  making  statistical  investigations  should  be  ap- 
pointed on  the  staff  of  the  city  superintendent's  office." 
From  this  recommendation  it  is  but  a  step  to  a  demand  for 
records  that  currently  tell  the  truth  clearly  and  with  a  saving 
of  teachers'  and  principals'  time.  Facts  that  should  be  cur- 
rently reported  by  school  authorities  are  now  being  sought 
by  the  Russell  Sage  Foundation  at  great  expense.  There  is 
no  better  way  of  befriending  the  school  system  of  New  York 
City  than  to  demand  efficient  methods  for  recording  school 
experience,  and  for  separating  competent  from  incompetent, 
practicable  from  impracticable,  wasteful  from  economical. 


38 


Reprinted  from  the  Educational  Review,  New  York,  February,  1909. 
Copyright,  igoq,  by  Educational  Review  Publishing  Co. 


I 

SCHOOL  REPORTS  AS  THEY  ARE  ^ 

The  personality  tablets  and  the  educational  experience  that 
may  be  discovered  in  school  reports,  even  as  they  are,  offer  a 
splendid  field  for  some  progressive  magazine  wishing  to  give 
the  w^hole  country  the  benefit  of  pioneer  v^ork  and  pioneer 
thought  by  makers  of  school  reports.  Whether  complete  or 
incomplete,  perfunctory  or  earnest,  with  or  without  illumi- 
nating matter,  the  formal  statements  of  school  superintend- 
ents to  their  communities  constitute  our  richest  mine  of  edu- 
cational data — the  fragmentary  materials  of  research  with 
which  scientific  study  of  school  problems  must  begin.  They 
tell  much  more  of  the  elasticity,  open-mindedness,  and  instinct 
of  workmanship  among  educational  leaders  than  could  Who's 
who,  or  a  gallery  of  portraits, — far  more,  too,  of  the  obstacles 
and  opportunities  that  confront  those  leaders  than  do  treatises 
on  adolescence,  or  histories  of  education. 

To  discover  what  school  reports  really  are  is  a  task  far 
more  interesting  than  the  subject  implies.  In  June  the  Edu- 
cational Review  asked  me  to  prepare  two  articles  on 
School  reports  as  they  are,  and  School  reports  as  they  ought 
to  he,  "  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal 
Research,  and  its  general  program  for  effective  publicity." 
Dr.  Elizabeth  Kemper  Adams,  whose  courses  in  education  at 
Smith  College  include  field  study  of  educational  administra- 
tion, became  so  interested  in  the  contemplated  examination 
that  she  gave  to  it  her  summer  vacation,  thus  making  possible 

'Written  in  collaboration  with  Dr.  Elizabeth  K.  Adams,  Smith  College. 


I  lO  Educational  Review  [February 

a  more  detailed  analysis  than  would  otherwise  have  been 
possible."  Two  graduate  students,  Miss  Beavers  of  Adelphi 
and  Miss  Allen  of  Columbia,  have  since  assisted.  School 
reports  are  full  of  two  essential  ingredients  of  sensation 
and  inspiration, — opportunities  seized  and  opportunities  lost. 
After  living  in  New  York  thru  five  years  when  schools  and 
public  alike  have  suffered  because  school  problems  were  discust 
on  theoretical  and  personal  grounds,  just  as  if  New  York  were 
without  experience,  I  have  come  to  believe  that  there  is  prob- 
ably no  need  today  in  the  educational  world  so  pressing  as 
that  for  adequate  recording  and  reporting  of  school  experi- 
ence. 

Desire  to  better  school  reports  is  general,  for  eighty-six 
replies  were  received  from  cities  and  forty  from  states,  in 
response  to  an  invitation  for  suggestion  and  criticism  sent  to 
the  superintendents  of  the  hundred  cities  having  the  largest 
population,  and  to  all  state  superintendents.  The  present 
article,  and  a  second, — School  reports  as  leading  educators 
would  have  them, — are  based  upon  these  answers,  and  upon 
an  analysis  of  seventy-two  city  reports.^ 

For  exhibits  of  best  things  and  of  weaknesses  in  school 
reports,  for  a  story  of  repeated  efforts  by  the  National 
Education  Association  to  improve  reports,  for  a  list  of  ques- 
tions never  answered  and  occasionally  answered,  and  a  study 

^  Each  report  was  read  from  cover  to  cover,  all  statements  of  fact,  all  recom- 
mendations, and  the  essential  elements  of  make-up  being  listed.  Financial 
items  were  not  scheduled  because  the  Teachers  College  studies  have  already 
made  clear  the  deficiencies  in  this  particular,  and  the  United  States  Com- 
missioner of  Education  is  now  gathering  information  that  will  lay  the 
basis  for  future  complete  and  uniform  financial  data.  The  number  of 
items  tabulated  (3,500)  was  so  great  that  it  has  not  seemed  desirable  to 
detail  them,  especially  as  their  lesson  can  be  fairly  shown  by  tables  for 
ten  large  cities  :  New  York,  Cleveland,  St.  Louis,  Buffalo.  Boston,  Baltimore, 
Pittsburg,  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  and  Philadelphia.  The  last-named  city 
is  not  fairly  represented,  because  the  superintendent  sent  us  his  own  report 
without  the  tabular  matter  on  which  it  is  based. 

•  Much  that  is  here  said  of  city  reports  is  not  true  of  state  reports,  which 
have  made  greater  progress  in  securing  both  uniformity  and  completeness. 
Because  the  accuracy  of  uniform  and  elaborate  tables  may  still  be  ques- 
tioned, and  because  the  attainment  of  ideals  for  state  reports  depends  upon 
improvement  in  reports  for  cities  where  educational  problems  are  most 
acute,  the  question  of  state  reporting,  except  for  purposes  of  illustration, 
is  left  for  future  treatment. 


1909]  School  reports  as  tkey  are  1 1 1 

in  detail  of  the  New  York  report,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
School  reports  and  school  efficiency.  I  want  here  to  con- 
sider certain  aspects  of  reporting  that  especially  concern  the 
parent,  taxpayer,  press,  and  outside  student  of  school  questions. 
The  cost  of  printing  school  reports  gives  an  idea  of  the 
educational  results  we  are  entitled  to  expect  and  to  require. 
The  following  table  shows  that  the  present  cost  bears  no 
fixt  relation  to  population  or  school  enrollment : 

City  Populatioji     Copies  Published     Cost 

New  York   3.437,000  3,000               $i,750 

St.  Louis    575.000  2,000  1,600 

Baltimore    509>ooo  500  260 

Buffalo    352,000  3,000  1,000 

St.   Paul    163,000  1,500  2,000 

Rochester    163,000  2,000  500 

Kansas  City,  Mo 164,000  2,000  1,095 

Providence    176,000  1,500  325 

Lowell   95,000  10,000  420 

Albany    94,000  1,000  205 

Jersey   City    206,000  2,000  800 

Louisville    205.000  1,200  300 

Lynn,   Mass 69,000  3,000  1,000 

Seattle    81,000  1,000  88 

Columbus    126,000  1,000  600 

Worcester    118,000  1,500  132 

Duluth     53,000  1,000  600 

Elizabeth,  N.  J 53,ooo  000  000 

Pittsburgh    322,000  1,500  299 

Los  Angeles 102,000  2,000  350 

Houston    45,000  1,500  500 

Covington,  Ky 43,000  200  160 

Manchester,   N.  H 57,050  500  65 

Birmingham    38,000  3,000  1,000 

To  produce  the  sixty-two  city  reports  for  which  facts  were 
received  cost  $25,000,  the  annual  income  on  $600,000.  To 
print  twenty-six  state  reports  cost  $47,500.  Including  the 
value  of  labor  given  to  compilation,  preparation,  proof-reading, 
editing,  our  annual  school  reports,  state  and  city,  represent  the 
income  on  an  investment  of  probably  $5,000,000,  or  more. 

The  number  of  reports  published  has  a  bearing  upon  the 
effectiveness,  make-up,  and  audience.  Indianapolis  has  had  no 
report  since  1902.  Elizabeth  and  Des  Moines  hope  to  print 
reports  next  year.     St.  Louis  prints  2,000,  but  has  a  mailing 


1 1 2  Educational  Review  [February 

list  of  only  400.  Lowell,  with  a  population  of  95,000,  prints 
as  many  copies  as  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston,  with 
a  combined  population  of  over  5,000,000.  Birmingham,  with 
38,000  population,  prints  and  distributes  3,000,  more  than 
Baltimore,  New  Orleans,  New  Haven,  Paterson,  Richmond, 
and  Trenton  combined,  with  an  aggregate  population  of  1,200- 
000.  Cambridge,  the  home  of  fair  Harvard,  and  Minneapolis, 
likewise  a  center  of  learning,  together  mail  1,600  copies,  for  a 
combined  population  of  300,000.  New  Haven,  beneficiary  of 
Yale's  atmosphere  for  two  centuries,  prints  only  500.  What 
does  it  mean  that  in  New  York  the  Board  of  Education,  spend- 
ing from  $30,000,000  to  $40,000,000  a  year,  has  declined  on 
grounds  of  economy  to  print  enough  reports,  or  even  abstracts 
for  all  teachers,  and,  including  its  out-of-town  mailing  list, 
prints  but  3,000  copies? 

The  make-up  of  reports  proves  the  need  for  better  technique 
in  editing,  typesetting,  binding,  etc.  Of  seventy-two  super- 
intendents, only  eighteen  give  an  index;  only  eighteen  employ 
black  face  type  for  emphasis  or  clearness,  while  only  nine 
have  even  those  unsatisfactory  tables  of  contents  by  pages 
which  discourage  reference.  Seven  print  the  name  and  date 
on  the  back  of  the  report,  a  very  important  little  thing  when 
a  library  shelf  contains  more  than  one  report.  Indentation, 
summaries,  percentages,  diagrams,  are  so  seldom  and  so  spar- 
ingly used  that  one  wonders  whether  authors  had  in  mind 
their  use  by  either  students  or  a  public  wishing  light  on  school 
problems.  New  York  City's  report  of  663  pages  has  a  table 
of  contents  with  no  cross-references  and  with  no  subdivisions 
whatever  of  500-odd  pages  written  by  associate  superintend- 
ents. Contrast  with  this  one  letter  of  Cleveland's  alphabetical 
index : 

Improving  school  conditions  44 

Increased  effectiveness  of  the  Teachers'    Institute   47 

Increased  salaries  for  teachers  in  elementary  schools  44 

Increased  defective  schools   59 

Indigent    books,     14;    new    policy    determined,    22;     restriction    of 

privilege,  22 ;   results    23 

Industrial    education,   extending,    50;    credit   course    in    applied    arts 

established,  53 ;   evening  trade  schools,   52 ;  high  school  manual 


1909]  School  reports  as  they  are  1 13 

training  course  revised,  54;  revision  and  extension  of  elementary 

manual  training  work,  52;  The  Technical  High  school  51 

Industrial  education,  see  also  Technical  High  school. 

Inspiration  of  education  conventions   50 

Instruction,   cost   of    50 

Interest,  coupons  for   165 

Altho  nearly  thirty  years  ago  the  National  Education 
Association  requested  that  all  reports  begin  with  summaries, 
few,  as  yet,  have  such  summaries,  and  those  given  are  not 
uniform,  are  incomplete,  and  often  confusing.  What  might 
be  put  into  a  summary  will  be  discust  in  the  next  article.  Suf- 
fice it  to  say  that,  generally  speaking,  it  would  be  possible  to 
tell  five  times  as  much  in  one-half  the  space  now  used  in  city 
reports.  For  example,  Xew  York  City  uses  a  page  of  over 
six  inches  to  set  forth  the  following  facts : 

License  Souglit  No.  Applica- 

tions 

Ungraded    class    licenses    ^7 

Substitute   licenses    i.74i 

Licenses    to    teach    in    vacation 

schools,    etc 3,ic8 

Licenses    to    teach    in    evening 

schools    4.881 

Totals    9.767  7,645  2,122 

After  setting  up  a  special  total  for  each  of  these  items,  the 
New  York  report  reads  thus :  "  The  total  number  of  persons 
examined  for  the  various  grades  and  kinds  of  licenses  desig- 
nated by  the  Board  of  Education  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
Board  of  Superintendents  was  13,494.  The  total  number  of 
licenses  was  10,086.  The  total  number  of  applicants  who 
failed  was  3,408.''  Two  such  tables,  not  condensed,  are  among 
four  tables  properly  condensed.  j\Iuch  space  is  taken  for  long 
sentences  to  the  effect  that  "  the  following  table  will  show," 
etc..  etc.,  or  "  the  above  table  shows,"  etc.,  etc. 

Few  reports  show  any  definite  plan  :  many  being  a  jumble  of 
fact,  school  history,  educational  discussions,  etc.  A  pleasing 
contrast  is  the  report  of  Cincinnati's  superintendent,  who  ex- 
plains the  scope  and  plan  of  his  reports,  and  logically  develops  it. 


No.  Gran 

9 

1,585 

itcd 

No.  Re- 
fused 
28 
156 

2.538 

570 

3,513 

1,368 

114  Educational  Review  [February 

How  far  are  defects  of  make-up  and  the  small  number  of 
copies  issued  due  to  indefiniteness  of  the  audience  which  super- 
intendents are  conscious  of  addressing?  Fifty-two  cities  re- 
port that  budgets  are  not  publicly  discust.  Of  i,ooo  recom- 
mendations made  in  seventy-two  reports,  few  seem  to  have 
been  addrest  to  the  people  who  pay  the  bills  for  carrying 
them  out.  Dissimilarity  in  language  and  method  of  reporting 
implies  that  other  superintendents  are  not  the  audience.  Lack 
of  technique  and  of  apparent  interest  in  presentation  suggests 
that  trustees  are  not  invariably  aimed  at.  Altho  sixty 
cities  send  reports  to  teachers,  few  impart  information  to,  or 
invite  suggestions  from,  the  teaching  staff.  Superintendents 
seldom  try  to  justify  themselves  to  themselves,  for  few  reports 
are  accounts  of  stewardship :  efficiency  of  system,  officers, 
teachers,  supervising  staff,  or  of  teaching  and  business  methods 
is  not  shown;  in  fact,  the  not-done,  the  not-yet-done,  the 
partial  failure  are  rarely  mentioned.  Here  and  there  are  evi- 
dences that  information  is  intended  for  general  consumption. 
Erie,  Pa.,  keeps  available  for  ready  reference  all  newspaper 
accounts  bearing  upon  the  conduct  of  the  public  schools. 
Milwaukee's  superintendent  urges  more  publicity  of  school 
matters,  "  to  work  up  interest  in  schools  and  to  get  the  best 
professional  personnel  on  the  board."  Utica  advises  the  great- 
est publicity  of  board  expenditures. 

Failure  to  picture  the  superintendents'  audience  is  indicated 
by  the  small  number  of  illustrations.  This  can  not  be  due  to 
lack  of  funds,  for  "  before  and  after "  pictures  of  adenoid 
children,  such  as  Cleveland  gives,  may  save  several  pages  of 
discussion,  exhortation,  and  description,  and  many  thousands 
of  dollars  for  visits  by  nurses  and  truant  officers  and  for 
teaching  needlessly  backward  children.  An  obdurate  trustee 
will  not  argue  against  a  photograph  of  an  unadjustable  desk 
that  causes  spinal  curvature  because  it  does  not  fit  its  occu- 
pant, or  of  gas  jets  burning  in  the  daytime.  Either  the  forty 
cities  printing  illustrations  are  extravagant,  or  other  super- 
intendents are  profligate  in  failing  to  use  the  wealth  of  live 
material  furnished  bv  school  incidents,  children's  activities, 
products  of  laboratory,  workshop,  and  playground.     H  illus- 


1909]  Schojl  reports  as  tJiey  are  115 

trations  did  not  convince,  enlighten,  and  entertain,  makers  of 
newspapers,  magazines,  and  textbooks  would  save  enough 
yearly  to  endow  a  national  institute  for  the  promotion  of 
efficiency  in  public  schools. 

Of  375  recommendations  made  in  the  reports  of  the  first 
ten  cities,  the  subject  distribution  was  as  follows : 

School'    property      and      equip-            Vacation    scliools    8 

ment    84  Promotion    and    school    mortal- 

y  Modifications  of  curriculum   ...  43          ity     7 

y^  Schools    or    classes    for    defec-             School  gardens    6 

•     tives  24       Text-book   problems    5 

Professional  progress  of  teach-            Kindergartens     5 

ers    23  Methods  of  receiving  and  spend- 

y  Industrial    education    19          ing  funds  5 

Medical     supervision,     examina-  School  aid  to  needy  children  ...  2 

tion,  etc 19       IMore  accurate  census   i 

v^  Teachers'  salaries   18       Moral  training    i 

Truants  or  delinquents  14       Free   lectures    i 

.  School  laws  and  board  rules  ...  14       Physical  education   I 

\/  Closer  correlation  betvireen  parts            Economy  in  supplies  i 

of  system  13  More     visiting     of     schools     by 

Classes      for      the      "out      of                board     1 

>    grade "    10  Size  and  make-up  of  board  ....  i 

t/ Schools  as  social  centers   9       Miscellaneous 40 

If  the  foregoing  recommendations  were  to  be  adopted  at  one 
time,  or  if  they  were  to  be  debated  at  one  time,  what  commo- 
tion would  result !  Some  gravely  indict  present  methods  and 
equipment;  all  presume  experience  as  their  basis;  all  involve 
the  expenditure  of  energy,  and,  with  one  or  two  exceptions, 
expenditure  of  money.  It  would  cost  approximately  $25,000,- 
000  to  carry  out  the  recommendations  made  by  Superintendent 
Maxwell  of  New  York  City,  besides  a  radical  change  in  the 
responsibilities  of  the  health  and  educational  departments. 
How  worth  while,  therefore,  a  support  from  facts  that  will 
enlist  lay  understanding,  sympathy,  and  cooperation;  how 
dangerous,  also,  recommendations  not  justified  by  experience. 
If  recommendations  were  based  upon  definite  information 
and  discust  with  reference  to  such  information,  it  would  not 
be  necessary  to  wait  twenty-five  or  fifty  years  to  grasp  or 
reject  the  blessings  tendered  by  these  superintendents :  school 
boards  of  five  with  an  executive  business  agent  and  proper 


Ii6  Educational  Review  [February 

accounting  methods;  no  more  waste  of  supplies;  annual  school 
census;  use  of  dwelling  houses  for  overflow  registration;  pur- 
chase of  sites,  and  construction  of  buildings  according  to  a 
comprehensive  plan,  in  anticipation  of  city  growth;  sanitary- 
buildings  only;  heliostats  and  trained  janitors;  dressing-rooms, 
dispensaries,    physical    examination    rooms    and  instruments, 
lunchrooms,   kitchens,   baths,   exhibition  rooms,   photographic 
darkrooms,  domestic  science  rooms,  attendance  offices  for  issu- 
ing work  certificates,  sanitary  drinking  fountains,  telephones 
to  save  the  attendance  officers'  time,  ample  schoolyards,  athletic 
fields,  playgrounds,  and  apparatus.     All  districts  would  have 
school  gardens,  vacation  schools,  night  schools,  and  buildings 
opened   for  neighborhood  clubs  and  entertainments.     Every 
school  would  have  its  parents'  association  and  cooperative  rela- 
tions with  labor  unions,  public  libraries,  relief  agencies,  cham- 
bers  of   commerce  and   manufactures.     Teachers   would   re- 
ceive equal  pay  for  equal  work ;  would  not  draw  pay  when 
absent;  would  be  compelled  to  take  courses  for  their  advance- 
ment ;  w^ould  be  periodically  tested,  and,  if  found  inefficient, 
would  be  either  dropt  or  pensioned.     All  children  W'Ould  be 
protected    from    contagious    and    removable    defects;    nurses 
would  explain  defects  to  parents;  laws  w^ould  compel  operation 
or  better   nourishment  when  necessary.      Special  schools  or 
special  classes  would  be  started  for  the  deaf,  crippled,  blind, 
paralytic ;  while  the  backward  would  be  studied  and  advanced. 
Foreigners  would  be  taught  civics;  girls,  domestic  science; 
boys  and  girls  would  be  given  industrial  and  commercial  train- 
ing ;   and   the   curriculum    for   elementary   schools   and   high 
schools  would  be  absolutely  made  over.     Police  courts  would 
attend  to  truant  cases  with  interest  in  the  child's  education. 
Greater  attention  would  be  given  to  school  hygiene  and  moral 
instruction.     Principals  and  teachers  would  be  alert  to  recog- 
nize physical  defects,  and  would  hold  frequent  conferences  so 
that  upper  and  low^er  grades,  elementary  and  higher  schools, 
would  work  for  a  single  plan ;  the  curriculum  w^ould  fit  for  life 
as  well  as  college;  physiological,  not  chronological,  age  would 
determine  the  promotion  to  secondary  schools.    School  mortal- 
ity and  promotion  would  be  studied,  the  elementary  course 
shortened,  and  the  shorter  dav  recognized  as  the  normal  day 


1909] 


School  reports  as  they  are 


117 


for  younger  pupils.  Promotion  would  be  by  subject  and 
whenever  the  child  is  ready,  and  not  when  his  fellows  are 
ready,  or  when  a  majority  of  subjects  are  past. 

From  the  seventy-two  reports  analyzed  3,500  facts  were 
scheduled,  not  including  the  financial  items.  Had  each  report 
contained  all  items,  there  would  have  been  a  total  of  252,000 ; 
in  fact,  there  were  only  13,234.  Not  a  single  item  appeared 
under  the  same  name  in  all  reports,  nor  did  one  appear  in  all 
of  the  reports  for  the  first  ten  cities.  The  following  table 
gives  for  these  cities  a  consolidated  statement  showing  for 
nine  different  subjects  the  total  facts  reported  by  all  cities, 
the  number  by  each  city  and  its  proportion  of  total  possibilities 
— assuming  similar  treatment. 

LACK    OF   UNIFORMITY   AND   COMPLETENESS    IN    CITY 

REPORTS 

Consolidated  Statement  of  Number  of  Facts  Reported  by  Ten  Cities 


Ten  Large 
Cities 

■a 

TO    0 

II 

|< 

Promotion  and  School 
Mortality 

c 
0 

C 

c 

u 
0 

•::;  '■" 

0  a; 
c  > 

11 
¥ 

V 

0. 
Ji 

£0 
c  2 

OK 

■a 
c 

-u  n 
c  n 

a.  a 
0 

tfi 
•a 
c 

c 
_o 

CS 

0 

<: 

0 

Total  sepa- 
rate facts  . . . 

1.664 

324  1       505 

100 

124 

67 

46 

158 

60 

3.048 

New  York 

Cleveland  . . . . 

St.  Louis 

Philadelphia  .. 

Buffalo 

Boston 

Baltimore 

Pittsburgh 

Chicago 

Cincinnati  . . . . 

383 
133 
476 

9 
374 
176 
211 
69 
ig2 
169 

157 

2 

21 

I 

58 

32 

18 

4 

32 

55 

260 

82 

45 
0 

82 

11 

0 

50 

39 

23      It 

31 !  25 

0  1    26 
0        I 

0         0 

39  1     12 

2         4 

0  1       0 

1  '     53 
33       27 

16 
8 

22 
0 
9 

25 
9 
8 
6 

16 

18 

6 
2 
0 
2 
0 
2 

7 

5 
11 

63 
61 

49 
20 

34 
26 

44 
13 
28 
32 

24 
19 
15 

0 

20 

23 

21 
13 
19 
23 

955 
367 
656 

31 
579 
334 
322 
114 
386 
405 

Totals  Checked 

2,192 

380        570 

129     159 

"9  i     53 

370 

177 

4.149 

Total    Possi- 
bilities . . . . 

16,640 

3.240 

5.050 

1,000 

1,240 

670 

460 

1.580 

600 

30,480 

Totals  Checked 
Omitting 
Philadelphia 

2,183 

379 

570 

129 

158 

119 

53 

350 

177 

4. 118 

TotalPossibi- 
lities  Oniit- 
tin,e:  Phila- 
delf)7iia. . .  . 

14.976 

2,Q07 

4.545 

QOO 

i,it6 

603 

4T4 

T.422 

';ao 

27.423 

ii8  Educatio7ial  Review  [February 

Reports  as  they  are  disappoint  educators.  In  1908,  as  in 
1868,  when  the  National  Education  Association  began  to  de- 
plore their  poverty  of  helpfulness,  school  reports  cover  differ- 
ent periods,  are  not  complete,  use  dissimilar  language,  and 
are  not  uniform,  city  with  city,  district  with  district,  nor 
school  with  school  within  a  city.  Two  attendance  officers 
working  side  by  side  in  Minneapolis  or  Utica  answer 
different  questions.  Per  capita  in  Chicago  includes  all 
costs.  Many  cities  give  no  per  capita.  New  York's 
per  capita  includes  only  part  of  the  cost,  and  furnishes 
occasion  every  year  for  a  squabble  between  the  Normal  Col- 
lege president,  the  City  College  president,  and  the  city  superin- 
tendent of  schools  about  three  per  capitas  made  up  of  dif- 
ferent elements.  Superintendent  Snyder,  of  Jersey  City, 
writes :  "  All  who  have  anything  to  do  with  comparison  and 
school  statistics  appreciate  the  danger  of  mistake  in  making 
these  comparisons,  because  items  that  have  the  same  names 
in  different  cities  have  so  many  different  meanings."  In  spite 
of  progress  made  in  state  reports.  Superintendent  Morrison 
of  New  Hampshire  writes :  "  I  am  convinced  that  not  a 
few  otherwise  scholarly  studies  have  been  made  and  results 
published  w^iich  are  almost  wholly  vitiated  by  lack  of  uni- 
formity. .  .  .  Average  attendance  means  one  thing  in 
Massachusetts  and  another  thing  in  other  parts  of  the 
country,"  Professor  David  S.  Snedden  declares  in  School 
reports  and  school  efficiency,  that  "  the  majority  of  reports 
illustrate  a  striking  phase  of  inefficiency  in  American  munici- 
pal government,"  because  they  "  fail  conspicuously  to  provide 
statistical  information  either  to  the  layman  or  to  the  ad- 
ministrator." Commissioner  Brown  of  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Education,  said  of  that  appeal  for  adequate  reports : 
"  I  am  very  glad  that  this  book  has  been  written  and  pub- 
lished, and  am  convinced  that  we  are  to  find  ways  by  which 
the  public  school  statistics  in  this  country  may  be  made  more 
directly  serviceable  in  the  improvement  of  the  schools." 

School  reports  as  they  are  serve  neither  critics  nor  de- 
fenders of  present  tendencies  in  popular  education.  A  well- 
known  writer,  who  "  went  honestly  to  condemn  "  the  public 


1909]  School  reports  as  they  are  1 1 9 

schools,  and  "  came  back  to  explain  and  praise,"  says :  "  Nor 
is  there  a  more  misrepresented  and  misunderstood  subject  in 
America  than  this  question  of  public  schools."  Yet  he  tries 
to  shatter  misrepresentation  without  reference  to  any  school 
report,  trusting  to  the  small  number  of  school  facts  which 
he  is  able  to  see  with  his  own  eyes.  President  Eliot  con- 
demns large  school  boards,  but  does  not  seek  proof  in  school 
reports.  Superintendent  Morris  of  Covington,  Ky.,  laments 
"  the  dense  ignorance  of  the  average  boy  of  the  pres- 
ent day  when  he  leaves  school  and  applies  for  work;"  neither 
he  nor  others  furnish  proof  nor  disproof.  Theories  come  and 
go,  experiments  are  made,  curriculums  are  changed,  but  sel- 
dom is  a  school  report  quoted  to  justify  an  opinion  or 
an  innovation. 

Public  officials  do  not  use  school  reports.  Mayors,  gov- 
ernors, and  presidents  love  to  address  m.eetings  of  educators; 
yet,  judging  from  their  executive  treatment  of  school  budgets, 
and  their  tardy  recognition  of  school  problems,  they  have 
drawn  little  knowledge  or  inspiration  from  school  reports. 
Can  you  imagine  a  national  conference  at  the  White  House  to 
consider  the  conservation  of  our  educational  resources? 

Teachers  do  not  look  to  school  reports  for  help.  Where, 
outside  of  Teachers  College,  Columbia  University,  is  there,  in 
the  United  States,  a  school  for  teachers  that  undertakes  to 
train  the  educators  of  the  future  to  prepare  adequate  and  clear 
statements  of  school  experience,  or  even  to  read  school  re- 
ports? In  some  instances,  judging  from  workmanship  and 
content,  it  is  doubtful  if  the  authors  themselves  have  critically 
examined  their  products. 

Questions  of  local  policy  and  taxation  are  seldom  settled 
with  reference  to  facts  presented  in  school  reports.  New 
York's  Charter  Revision  Commission  has  not  thought  it 
strange  or  inefficient  to  have  recommended  changes  in  the 
school  charter  without  reading  school  reports.  Not  only  is  it 
not  expected  of  New  York  school  trustees  that  they  themselves 
read  the  reports  addrest  to  them,  but  a  leading  paper 
recently  said  that  a  new  trustee  was  eminently  fitted  to  tell 
what  the  schools  need,   "  because  he  went  thru  the  public 


I20  Educational  Review  [February 

school  himself."  How  reports,  when  used,  may  influence  local 
policy  is  illustrated  in  New  York,  whose  fiscal  officers  have 
recently,  without  discredit  to  themselves,  cut  the  educational 
budget  from  $33,000,000  to  $27,500,000  because  special  re- 
ports to  the  budget  committee  showed:  that  year  after  year 
the  Board  of  Education,  in  its  estimates,  had  been  overstating 
by  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  the  amount  needed  for 
additional  teachers;  that  funds  had  been  diverted  contrary  to 
written  and  verbal  pledges;  that  money  given  for  elementary 
schools  had  been  used  for  other  purposes;  that  of  $18,000 
given  for  additional  attendance  officers,  only  $600  was  used 
for  that  purpose;  that  $7,000  given  to  increase  particular 
clerical  salaries  had  been  distributed  among  a  larger  number 
late  in  the  year  so  as  to  effect  an  annual  salary  increase  of 
$20,000;  that  money  was  asked  for  rent  of  a  building  in  1909 
which  had  not  been  used  since  1907;  that  money  given  for 
school  kitchens,  etc.,  had  been  used  for  other  purposes;  that 
it  was  costing  from  three  to  five  times  as  much  per  pupil  or 
per  room  for  repairs  of  furniture  and  pianos,  as  well  as  of 
buildings,  in  the  Bronx  and  Queens  as  in  Brooklyn  and  ]\Ian- 
hattan.  When  given  a  chance  at  the  taxpayers'  hearing  to 
defend  their  estimates,  school  officers  were  without  data  to 
justify  a  protest.  The  only  demurrer  entered  was  by  a 
volunteer  body,  ineffective  because  both  uninformed  and 
misinformed. 

Medical  supervision,  examination,  inspection  are  discust  by 
forty  reports.  By  1907  the  physical  welfare  of  school  chil- 
dren was  of  national  interest.  Grave  questions  of  state  policy 
are  here  involved :  State  socialism,  public  health,  school  cur- 
riculum, physical  education,  school  hygiene,  school  morals, 
school  budget.  Yet  little  can  be  learned  from  the  regular  re- 
ports of  ten  cities  wnth  an  enrollment  of  1,500,000,  and  a 
probable  900,000  needing  attention  to  eyes,  teeth,  breathing, 
nourishment,  etc.  In  1905  Superintendent  ]\Iaxwell  had  pro- 
posed at  St.  Louis  the  giving  of  free  meals,  and  had  pro- 
tested against  forcing  free  instruction  upon  children  whose 
undernourished  bodies  made  them  unable  to  profit  from  such 
instruction.     Robert  Hunter's  Poverty,  John  Spargo's  Bitter 


1909]  School  repo7'ts  as  they  are  121 

cry  of  the  children,  Chicago's  Bureau  of  Child  Study,  and 
the  iMassachusetts  state  medical  inspection  law  had  stimulated 
press  comment.  The  New  York  Committee  on  Physical  Wel- 
fare of  School  Children  had  completed  its  first  year  of  re- 
search and  educational  work.  Altho  New  York  had 
furnished  inspiration  to  other  cities  thru  magazines  and 
press  articles,  the  school  report  shows  not  a  statement  of  fact, 
not  a  table  of  work  done.  Boston  reports  39  of  100  facts 
given  in  ten  reports,  but  omits  the  number  of  schools  where 
examinations  were  made,  the  number  of  children  examined, 
excluded,  needing  treatment,  treated,  cured.  Chicago  and 
Baltimore  mention  medical  inspection,  but  do  not  report 
their  experience.  The  New  York  report  charges  the  health 
department  with  inefficiency  in  the  examination  of  school 
children  for  physical  defects,  and  declares  that  medical  super- 
vision will  never  work  successfully  until  taken  from  the 
department  of  health  and  lodged  in  the  department  of  edu- 
cation. Legislation  is  recommended  to  punish  parents  who 
fail  to  attend  to  defective  children.  Altho  the  department  of 
health  had  a  complete  record  of  children  examined  and 
found  defective,  the  school  superintendent  gives  no  facts; 
altho  tests  had  proved  that  parents  would  act  if  shown 
why  children's  school  work  was  hindered  by  physical  defects, 
these  tests  were  not  quoted.  Obviously,  it  makes  all  the  dif- 
ference in  the  world  to  the  success  of  medical  supervision 
whether  the  state  must  send  a  nurse  or  a  police  summons  to 
homes.  The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  found  that  par- 
ents of  96  per  cent,  of  1,400  children  in  three  different  districts 
of  New  York  City  promised  to  act  promptly  when  told  the 
reason  for  acting,  while  81  per  cent,  did  act  at  once;  and 
the  health  department,  alleged  to  be  incorrigible,  when  con- 
fronted with  evidence  of  its  inefficiency,  established  a  bureau 
of  child  hygiene  with  a  program  bound  to  succeed  if  school 
officials  cooperate  and  publish  results. 

Failure  to  win  promotion  and  school  mortality  are  worry- 
ing educators.  To  remedy  these  evils,  the  National  Educa- 
tion Association  advocates  a  simplified  curriculum.  Com- 
missioner Draper,  of  New  York  State,  declares  that  school 


122  Ediuationat  Review  Lreuruiiry 

records  prove  the  necessity  for  industrial  and  vocational 
training;  others  advocate  promotion  by  subject  and  flexible 
grading.  The  children  have  been  in  school;  they  have  been 
counted ;  yet  school  reports  thrown  very  little  light  upon  the 
subject.  The  ten  largest  cities  give  324  different  facts;  only 
one  attempts  to  give  reasons  for  dropping  out.  A  few  re- 
ports try  to  explain  why  children  drop  out  of  one  or  more 
grades  of  high  school;  but  why  children  drop  out  of  elemen- 
tary grades,  why  they  never  go  into  the  fifth,  sixth,  or  seventh 
grade,  or  into  high  school,  we  can  not  learn.  While  many 
superintendents  are  ready  to  condemn  the  present  curriculum 
and  to  adopt  changes,  their  reports  give  no  fact  basis  to  justify 
remedies  because  present  deficiencies  are  neither  diagnosed 
nor  proved.  The  superintendent  of  Birmingham  records 
with  surprize  that  the  introduction  of  manual  training  does 
not  seem  to  have  stopt  school  mortality.  The  records  of 
New  York,  not  applied  to  this  particular  problem,  show  that 
high  schools  where  commercial  and  industrial  training  are 
given,  do  not  keep  their  pupils  better  than  other  schools  hav- 
ing classical  training.  When  the  Detroit  superintendent  talks 
of  first-year  pupils  dropping  out,  he  says :  "  Twenty-five  be- 
cause of  illness;  four  because  of  illness  in  the  family;  two 
because  of  failing  sight;  forty-one  because  of  work;  six 
transferred;  ten  left  the  city;  nine  were  indififerent  to  school; 
one  took  up  music;  for  twenty-three,  causes  unknown." 
Yonkers  has  a  table  that  shows  the  number  who  entered,  the 
number  left,  the  number  completing  eight  terms  of  work  or 
more,  and  the  number  completing  from  none  to  seven  terms' 
work.  The  latest  statement  of  the  New  York  superintendent 
on  this  subject  is  in  the  report  for  1906,  and  contains  no  facts 
but  depends  upon  undoubtedly,  probably,  generally,  approx- 
imately, in  my  judgment,  a  fezu. 

Speaking  of  school  mortality,  several  cities  present  facts 
relative  to  the  mortality  of  school  children.  Allegheny  gives 
by  districts  the  number  of  pupils  who  died  during  the  year; 
Cincinnati,  the  name,  age,  and  cause  of  death;  Columbus,  the 
number  of  causes  and  deaths  by  months ;  Trenton,  the  number 
of  deaths,  causes,  and  ages  bv  schools.     There  is  reason  to 


1909]  School  reports  as  they  are  123 

question  the  accuracy  and  completeness  of  these  reports.  No 
one  knows  how  much  of  the  gap  between  average  membership 
and  total  net  membership  is  due  to  sickness  or  to  death. 
Ought  the  relation  between  school  and  pupil  be  such  that  a 
child  can  die  and  be  marked  as  an  absentee  or  be  sick  and 
marked  as  a  truant,  or  that  preventable  diseases  can  tax 
school  funds  by  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  annually 
without  the  schools  themselves  notifying  their  communities 
of  such  cost? 

Truancy  and  absence  furnish  illustration  of  all  the  strong 
and  weak  points  of  school  reporting.    New  York  leads  with  260 
facts,  more  than  three  times  the  number  given  by  any  other 
school,  altho  the  first  ten  cities  give  505  facts.     Even  these 
fail  to  answer  many  important  questions.     A  few  of  thirty 
new  facts  reported  for  Xew  York  by  Associate  Superintend- 
ent E.  B.  Shallow  throw  light  upon  the  possibility  of  strength- 
ening reports :    Number  of  cases  of  truancy  reinvestigated, 
5,867;   number  returned   to   school,    12,755;  number  due  to 
neglect  of  parents,  2,771;  number  of  cases  of  non-attendance 
due  to  indifference  of  parents,  to  poverty,  to  sickness,  to  tem- 
porary necessity;  number  of  children  placed  on  probation  by 
district  superintendents  after  hearing  of  charges  of  truancy 
or  incorrigibility;  number  of  both  classes  wdio  improve  under 
probation;  number  of  parents  fined,  161;  parents  imprisoned, 
33 ;   number  placed   on   probation  by   children's   court ;   sus- 
pended incorrigibles.     Springfield  gives  by  schools  the  indi- 
vidual truants,  the  number  of  truants,  the  days  of  truancy,  the 
prosecutions  of  habitual  truants,  the  number  committed  to  tru- 
ancy schools  and  cases  pending.     Springfield  and  New  Haven 
give  half-days  of  truancy.     Providence  gives  ages  of  truants 
and  results  of  prosecutions.     One  can  not  learn  for  the  differ- 
ent cities  when  the  truant  officer  is  notified  that  the  child 
needs  attention,  or  in  how  many  cases  the  name  is  dropped 
from  the  list  because  "  an  undesirable  citizen."     Kansas  City 
distinguishes  temporary  absentees  and  cases  having  from  one 
to  nine  investigations,  giving,  also,  by  schools,  the  number 
of  cases  and   investigations.     The   New  York  report  states 
that  part-time  pupils  are  inclined  to  play  truant,  a  fact  fre- 


124  Educational  Review  [February 

quently  urged  against  the  Denver  system  of  the  shorter  day; 
yet  in  1906-1907  part-time  pupils,  constituting  more  than  14 
per  cent,  of  the  average  enrolhnent  for  elementary  schools, 
furnish  but  12.7  per  cent,  of  the  truants. 

Why  is  it  that  school  reports  are  still  so  unsatisfactory? 
Because  we  have  not  expected  enough  from  them;  secondly, 
because  it  has  been  made  no  one's  business  to  keep  alive  be- 
tween conventions  and  between  articles  the  interest  there  ex- 
prest, — to  applaud  the  efficient  and  segregate  the  backward. 
When  committees  were  appointed,  they  worked  at  odd  times 
without  funds  for  collecting  evidence  or  circulating  conclu- 
sions. National  commissioners  and  state  commissioners  have 
been  content  to  publish  reports  that  they  knew  were  lacking  in 
uniformity,  completeness,  and  accuracy.  More  important, 
however,  are  reasons  inherent  in  the  mental  attitude  of  edu- 
cators which  account  for  the  delay  in  securing  action  where 
there  has  been  nominal  agreement :  ( i )  They  have  urged 
each  other  to  prepare  statements  for  the  sake  of  fellow  edu- 
cators; (2)  they  have  talked  too  much  of  uniformity  and  too 
little  of  accuracy,  completeness,  and  significance — uniformity 
of  defects  can  never  help;  (3)  they  have  not  seen  that  they 
can  not  get  proper  reports  unless  they  employ  records  to  tell 
currently  their  story;  (4)  they  have  not  wanted  to  test  their 
own  efficiency  or  the  soundness  of  their  methods. 

Chief  of  these  reasons  for  inadequate  reporting  is  the  last. 
What  one  can  learn  from  one's  colleagues  is  relatively  little 
compared  with  what  one  can  learn  from  oneself  by  applying 
efficiency  tests  and  asking  one's  community  to  apply  such 
tests.  The  gap  between  what  one  tries  and  what  one  does 
is  more  important  than  the  gap  between  one's  own  attempt 
and  another's  attempt.  Success  in  modern  business  depends 
upon  self-analysis,  as  well  as  upon  study  of  others.  The  first 
reason  for  school  reports  is  to  learn  whether  the  reporter 
himself  is  measuring  up  to  the  requirements  and  opportunities 
of  his  office.  The  measurer  should  be  the  public,  for  whose 
intelligence  regarding  school  policy  and  school  facts  too  little 
concern  has  been  shown.  What  hope  is  there  for  democracy 
if  its  emblem,  the  public  school,  is  not  managed  on  democratic 


1909]  School  reports  as  they  are  125 

lines?  If  the  public  is  to  administer  its  own  schools,  it  must 
be  given  current  knowledge  of  results,  including  failures. 
Citizen  judgment  can  never  be  based  upon  intelligence  so  long 
as  every  question  is  treated  with  contempt  and  regarded  as 
reactionary  criticism  of  free  education,  or  so  long  as  tax- 
payers are  expected  to  "  stand  and  deliver,"  and  blindly  to 
accept  as  sound  any  and  every  plan  for  spending  school  money 
and  school  energy. 

If  citizen  interest  and  intelligence  are  necessary;  if  the 
sacredness  of  the  teaching  profession  is  due  to  its  product,  not 
its  field;  if  there  is  a  limit  to  money  required  by  schools; 
if  the  public  may  be  led  to  cooperate  by  information,  as  well 
as  by  cajolery  or  intrigue;  if  the  title  "trustee"  does  not  at 
once  enable  citizen  directors  to  sense  school  needs  and  school 
results  that  as  taxpayers  they  are  unable  to  see;  if  admission 
of  error  will  promote  education,  the  potential  value  of  school 
reports  is  inestimable.  If,  fifty  years  ago,  it  had  been  sug- 
gested that,  in  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary,  teachers  and 
superintendents  might  be  sailing  under  false  colors,  besides 
adding  to  local  taxes  and  their  own  labors,  it  is  hardly  likely 
that  progress  in  school  administration  would  have  been  so 
tardy.  If,  for  ten  years,  taxpayers  had  been  told  by  educators 
that  they  should  look  for  proof,  they  would  have  forced,  long 
ago,  the  reforms  that  educators  are  unanimous  in  desiring. 

William  H.  Allen 

Secretary  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research 
New  York 


I 


QUESTIONS   ANSWERED 


BY 


SCHOOL    REPORTS    AS    THEY   ARE 


SUBMITTED     TO    THE 

CONFERENCE  OF  STATE  SUPERINTENDENTS 

CHICAGO,    FEB.    22,    1909 


"What  are  the  next  steps  to  be  taken  in  the  direction 
of  desirable  uniformity  in  the  reports  of  city  school 
statistics  called  for  by  state  and  national  offices  of 
education?" 


BASED    UPON    ANALYSIS    OF    72    CITY    REPORTS 
BY    THE 

BUREAU  OF  MUNICIPAL  RESEARCH 
261  Broadway,  New  York  City 


IMPORTANT  TERMS 
WHOSE   USE  AND   MEANING  ARE   NOT   UNIFORM 

School  age:  Pending  uniform  state  requirements,  is  it  practicable  for 
all  reports  to  distinguish  the  following  age  groups — 4,  5-6,  7-13,  14, 
15,  16-17,  18-21?     Is  it  desirable  to  give  census  for  each  age? 

Population  of  city:  Since  only  a  few  cities  have  actual  counts  oftener 
than  once  in  ten  years,  should  reports  indicate  whether  total  popu- 
lation and  school  population  are  counts  or  estimates? 

Net:  If  supposed  to  include  no  pupil  more  than  once,  is  it  practicable 
and  desirable  for  reports  to  indicate  whether  and  what  steps  are 
taken  to  secure  accurate  net  figures? 

Attendance:  Should  those  who  attend  not  more  than  one — or  five,  or 
ten — sessions  figure  in  attendance  and  in  net  enrollment?  Should 
legal  or  special  holidays  be  counted  as  school  days?  Are  any 
counted  as  present  on  holidays,  who  were  not  present  the  day — 
or  the  week — before? 

Enrollment,  Registration,  Membership:  Should  register  mean  to  re- 
cord a  child's  intention  to  attend?  Should  one  who  registers  but 
fails  to  attend  be  enrolled  or  counted  as  a  member?  Is  there  a 
minimum  of  attendances  that  should  be  required  before  one  may 
be  said  to  be  a  member  or  to  belong?  Is  it  practicable  to  dis- 
tinguish between  those  admitted  or  entered  and  those  belonging? 
Should  reports  indicate  when  pupils  once  enrolled  are  dropped 
from  the  list  of  members  on  which  attendance  is  computed?  Are 
those  present  but  one  half-day  counted  the  same  as  those  present 
two  half-days?  Is  average  attendance  based  on  average — or  total — 
number  enrolled — or  registered?  Is  it  worth  while  for  a  few  years 
to  report  proportion  of  actual  attendances  to  both  total  and  net 
registration  and  to  total,  net  and  average  enrollment? 

Truants,  Absentees,  Non-attendants:  Should  these  terms  be  defined  in 
all  reports?  Should  those  who  are  dropped  from  the  roll  because 
of  irregular  attendance  or  chronic  absence  be  reported  as  truant 
and  absent  and  thus  affect  average  attendance?  Should  a  distinc- 
tion be  made  between  those  dying  and  others  withdrawn  from 
school? 

Cases  of  vs  Individuals:  Are  truants,  absentees,  the  tardy,  counted 
more  than  once? 

Arrested,  Apprehended,  Brought  before  Court:  Is  it  desirable  to  re- 
port the  different  steps  of  truancy  and  non-attendance  work? 

Normal  age.  Backward:  Should  reports  indicate  by  years  those  in 
each  grade  and  explain  what  years  "normal"  covers  for  each  grade? 

58 


Medical  Inspection,  Examination,  Follow  up  work,  Treatment:  Unless 
these  terms  are  defined  communities  having  but  a  perfunctory 
"looking  over"  for  obvious  contagion  may  be  led  to  believe  that 
their  childrens'  physical  defects  are  discovered  and  treated  and 
their  school  environment  supervised  by  physicians. 

Manual,  Industrial,  Vocational,  Trade,  Domestic,  Commercial:  Grow- 
ing popular  and  professional  interest  will  increase  the  evil  results 
of  misusing  these  terms 

Cost:  Does  it,  wherever  mentioned,  include  all  labor,  and  all  material 
used  for  the  purpose  and  period  described,  whether  bills  therefor 
were  paid  last  year,  are  already  paid  this  year,  or  still  owing?  Or 
does  it  include  only  cash  payments  charged  during  the  period  re- 
ported to  the  purpose  described?  Where  one  branch  or  division  or 
purpose  is  charged  with  expenses  incurred  for  another,  should 
this  fact  be  clearly  stated?  Where  outlays  for  permanent  improve- 
ments are  included  in  current  expenses,  should  the  fact  be  stated? 

Percapita:  Is  it  based  upon  totals  or  net  figures — for  enrollment  or 
registration  or  attendance? 


59 


KEY  TO   ABBREVIATIONS 


a  =  by  age 

bp  =  "  birth  place 

cl  =  "  class 

CO  =  "  color 

da  =  "  days 

de  =  "  department 

dt  =  "  district 

gr  =  "  grade 

hs  =  "  high  school 

kd  =  "  kind  of  school 

mo  =  "  month 

na  =  "  nationality 

qr  =  "  quarter 

rm  =  "  room 

sc  =  "  school 

sx  —  "  sex 

tr  =  "  term 

wk  =  "  week 

yr  =  "  year 

+  =  "        increase  or  decrease 

%  =  "  percentage 

(  )  =  "   subdivision  of  preceding  item 


also 


(geographical  division) 


ILLUSTRATION 

Registration — sx  (sc  (a,  gr),  gr  (a)  )  means  that  the  following  facts 
are  given  :  (i)  the  total  registration  for  all  schools;  (2)  the  total  of 
each  sex  registered  ;  (3)  the  sex  registration  in  each  school;  (4)  the 
ages  of  each  sex  in  each  school;  (5J  the  number  of  each  sex  in  each 
grade  of  each  school  ;  (6)  the  sex  registration  in  each  grade;  (7)  the 
sex  registration  of  each  age  in  each  grade 


QUESTION 

Tor  which  main  divisions  of  significant  school  facts  is  it  desirable  or 
practicable  to  report  any — or  all — of  the  above  subdivisions  ? 

60 


Questions  Answered  by  One  or  More  of  72  Reports  Regarding 
PROMOTION   AND  SCHOOL   MORTALITY 

All  Schools 

Promoted — sx,  %;  ahead  of  normal  grade;  withdrawn,  sx 

Progress  and  survival— %  (charts  for  1896-1906,  1897-1907);  complet- 
ing elementary  school  course  or  its  equivalent;  beginning  grammar 
school  course  who  later  entered  hs;  beginning  grammar  school 
course  who  completed  a  three  years  course  in  hs;  beginning 
grammar  school  course  who  completed  a  four  years  course  in  hs; 
elementary  school  graduates  or  equivalent  who  entered  hs;  be- 
ginning a  hs  course  who  completed  a  three  years  hs  course;  be- 
ginning a  hs  course  who  completed  a  four  years  hs  course 

All   Elementary  Schools 

Promoted  or  advanced — dt,  tr  (dt),  gr  (dt,  tr  (dt)  ),  sc  (gr);  per  cent, 
dt,  tr,  gr  (dt,  tr  (dt)  ) ;  midyear  promotions,  dt,  tr  (dt) ,"  time  oc- 
cupied in  accomplishing  grade  work;  by  periods  of  time;  by  groups 
(by  periods  of  time) 

Not  promoted  or  advanced — sc,  gr  (sx) 

Normal  age — gr;  above  normal  age,  gr;  %  above  normal  age,  yr,  gr 
(yr) ;   behind  grade;   % 

Pupils  withdrawn — sx,  to  other  public  schools  of  city;  of  state;  to  pri- 
vate schools;  to  other  schools,  tr,  %  (tr) ;  leaving  to  go  to  work; 
because  of  illness,  tr,  %  (tr) ;  for  other  reasons;  pupils  registered 
last  year  who  are  not  on  register  this  year;  removed  from  city; 
removed  to  other  districts  of  city;  gone  to  other  than  public 
schools;  sick  or  visiting;  gone  to  work;  unaccounted  for  above 

Suspensions  or  expulsions — sc,  tr,  yr,  %  (sx,  tr,  yr) 

Graduates— yr  (dt),  sc  (sx),  sx  (dt,  yr  (dt)  ),  a  (dt) ;  normal  age; 
above  normal  age;  average  age,  dt,  sx  (dt) ;  admitted  to  high 
school,  sc 

Kindergartens 

Promoted  to  elementary  school — sx,  sc  (sx) ;  %  based  on  average 
daily  membership,  yr 

Withdrawn — sx,  sc   (sx),  tr,  %   (tr) 

Primary  and  Grammar  Departments 

Promoted — sx,  gr  (sx) ;  %  of  promotion  on  average  daily  attendance; 
ahead  of  normal  grade;   behind  normal  grade 

6i 


Foreign  Classes 

Promoted  to  grades — gr 

Special  Classes 

Promoted — rm,  %;  disposition  of  those  promoted;  withdrawn,  sx 

Evening  Schools 
Certification — sx,  sc   (sx,  yr,  subject   (yr)   ) ;   withdrawn,  sc   (sx) 

High   School 

Entitled  to  enter  from  public  school — sx,  sc   (sx),  yr,  + 

Admitted  from  all  schools — tr,  hs  (tr),  sx  (sc);  average  age,  sc; 
from  public  schools;  from  other  schools  or  other  sources,  tr,  hs 
(tr),  sx  (tr,  sc  (tr)  );  elementary  graduates  entering,  dt,  %;  from 
public  schools;  from  other  schools;  ahead  of  normal  grade;  be- 
hind 

Discharged — before  graduation,  yr,  sc  (yr,  sx),  gr  (yr,  sc  (yr)  ),  % 
(yr,  sc  (yr)  );  withdrawn,  sx;  during  year  and  not  re-entering 

Promoted  or  advanced — sx,  sc,  gr  (sc,  sx),  %  (sc  (dt)  );  %  based  on 
average  daily  membership,  yr;  not  promoted  or  advanced,  gf,  sc 
(gr);  certified,  sx  (dt,  sc  (dt)  ),  +  (yr);  average  age,  dt,  sx 
(dt) 

Graduated — yr,  +  (yr,  sx),  de  (yr),  sx  (dt,  yr),  sc  (sx  (dt)  ),  tr  (sc, 
sx  (sc)  ) ;  courses,  sc,  tr,  sx  (sc,  tr) ;  ratio,  sx,  yr;  %  (sc) ; 
average  age,  dt,  sx  (dt) 

Entering  higher  institutions — yr,  kind  of  institution  (yr) ;  from  last 
graduating  class,  sx,  sc  (sx),  kind  of  institution  (sx,  sc  (sx)  ) 

Colored    High   Schools 

Admitted  from  grammar  schools — tr  (yr) ;  from  other  schools,  tr  (yr) ; 
by  promotion  during  year,  tr  (sx) ;  discharged,  yr  (%) ;  graduated, 
sx,  de 

Normal  Schools 

Applicants  from  city  high  schools — ^sc,  tr;  from  outside  schools,  dt,  tr 
(dt) ;  admitted  from  city  high  schools,  sx,  sc  (tr),  %  (sc) ;  from 
outside  schools,  dt,  tr  (dt),  %  (dt);  average  age,  sc;  promoted; 
%  based  on  average  daily  membership,  yr,  sc;  withdrawn;  gradu- 
ated, sc,  tr  (sc  (yr)  );  since  organization,  sc 

62 


Questions  Answered  by  One  or  More  of  72  Reports  Regarding 

MEDICAL   SUPERVISION 

Purposes — inspection  to  discover  communicable  diseases;  exclusion  of 
notifiable  diseases;  treatment  of  minor  diseases;  examination  of 
children  at  request  of  teachers;  examination  of  all  children  for 
physical  or  mental  defects;  supervision  of  play,  physical  training, 
buildings 

Authorities  responsible — board  of  health;  board  of  education;  volun- 
teer agency  co-operating  with  schools 

Staff — inspectors,  term  of  service;  physicians,  co,  paid,  unpaid;  time 
given  to  work;  nurses,  paid,  unpaid;  under  health  board;  under 
school  board;  under  both 

Schools — 'inspected;  not  inspected 

Children  examined — dt,  sc,  kd,  gr,  cl,  mo;  after  four  days  consecutive 
absence;  defects  found;  cases  of  disease  found;  by  school  nurses; 
for  special  or  ungraded  classes  or  schools,  sx  (dt),  sc  (dt,  sx), 
dt;  sent  to  classes,  dt,  sc  (dt) ;  reported  dt,  sc  (dt) ;  not  reported; 
backward  examined  by  teachers 

Treatment — excluded,  yr,  mo,  sc;  for  each  disease;  needing  treatment, 
yr;  receiving  treatment,  mo,  sc  (mo) ;  for  each  disease,  %,  yr,  and 
defect,  %,  yr;  not  receiving  treatment;  cured;  for  each  disease; 
treated  at  home,  mo,  for  each  disease;  treated  by  nurse,  for  each 
defect,  for  each  disease,  mo;  treated  by  family  physician;  by  ocu- 
list; treated  at  hospital  or  dispensary;  cured  and  returned;  still 
under  treatment 

Notifications — to  schools;  to  parents  by  mail;  by  messenger 
Aid — sc;   by  volunteer  agencies;   eye  glasses;   other  relief 
Visits — to  schools,  mo,  sc;  to  homes,  mo;  by  nurses 
Scholarship — no.  backward 

Questions  Answered  by  One  or  More  of  72  Reports  Regarding  , 

PHYSICAL  DEFECTIVES 

Crippled — enrolled,  sx,  mo;  average,  mo;  average  membership,  yr; 
average  attendance,  yr,  %  (yr) ;  epileptics;  blind;  enrolled,  sx;  aver- 
age membership,  sx;  average  attendance,  sx;  withdrawn,  sx; 
remaining,  sx;  average  absence,  sx;  deaf;  enrolled,  yr;  net,  yr; 
average,  yr,  na,  bp;  registration,  gr  (sx,  average  age),  a,  sx;  aver- 
age, sx,  yr;  entered,  sx;  number  at  date;  average  attendance, 
yr,  sx;  %  yr;  not  absent,  %;  for  certain  period,  %;  av.  absence, 
sx;  not  tardy,  sx;  persistent  attendance,  %;  received  from  other 
buildings;  remaining;  average  per  teacher 

63 


Questions  Answered  by  One  or  More  of  72  Reports  Regarding 
MENTAL    DEFECTIVES 

Registration — dt,  yr,  tr  (dt),  ci  (dt) ;  average,  rm;  by  groups;  needing 
enrollment,  co,  sx;  enrolled,  yr,  dt,  rm,  sx,  cl,  sc  (sx,  rm);  re- 
ceived from  other  schools,  sx;  average  daily  attendance,  %;  dis- 
position; returned  to  regular  schools,  rm;  found  in  regular  schools 
unable  to  complete  grade;  sent  to  institutions;  discharged  from 
school;  going  to  work;  withdrawn  because  unprogressive;  leaving; 
remaining;  progress,  no.  at  different  rates;  residence,  income 
classes;  physical  size,  degree  of  backwardness 

Questions  Answered  By  One  Or  More  of  72  Reports  Regarding 
TRUANCY  AND   COMPULSORY   EDUCATION 

Definition  of  absence,  of  truancy 

Truant  officers  by  each  appointing  body 

Cases  reported — (all,  sx,  truancy,  absence,  non-attendance,  mo,) ;  in- 
correctly; verified;  by  principals,  dt;  census,  dt;  citizens,  dt;  po- 
lice, dt;  from  other  public  schools;   incorrigible 

Cases  investigated — a,  dt,  mo;  reinvestigated,  dt;  absence,  dt;  from 
public,dt;  parochial,  dt;  other  schools,  dt;  on  ofllcer's  initiative, 
dt;  reinvestigated,  dt;  supposed  truancy,  dt;  non-attendance,  dt; 
complaints,  dt;  reinvestigated;  cases  excused,  %  (sc);   +   (%) 

Family  relations  (truants,  non-attendants,  both) — ;  father  living 
mother  living;  step  father;  step  mother;  father  intemperate; 
orphans 

Disorderly  children — ^violating  rules,  mo;  warned  for  incorrigibility, 
mo;  damaging  school  property,  dt;  mutilating  or  losing  school 
books,  dt;  juvenile  offenders  investigated 

Truancy — individuals  reported,  sx;  persons  warned,  mo;  cases,  dt,  sc, 
tr,  yr,  mo,  +;  individuals,  sx,  dt;  days,  dt,  sc;  half-days,  dt,  sc,  tr, 
yr;  pupils  behind  grade,  due  to,  gr,  co;  pupils  returned,  dt,  sx,  mo; 
to  private,  parochial  and  public  schools,  no.  times,  dt;  by  attend- 
ance officers;  from  grades  without  manual  training;  not  located; 
left  city;   unenroUed  found;   %  truancy  on  attendance 

Absences — children  reported,  sc,  mo;  absentees,  mo;  without  permis- 
sion, sc,  mo;  cases  acted  upon;  cases  of  irregular  attendance  looked 
after  by  attendance  officer;  non-enrolled;  non-attendants  placed  in 
school,  %,  dt,  sx,  mo;  children  found  on  streets;  returned  to  school, 
sc,  mo;  children  14  at  work;  different  children  registered  in  office 
of   district   superintendent,   yr;    full   time   classes,   yr;    part   time 

64 


classes,  yr;  special  classes,  yr;  ungraded  classes,  yr;  working 
legally,  sx,  dt;  neither  at  work  nor  in  school,  a,  dt,  yr,  +;  working 
in  stores  or  shops,  yr,  dt,  +;  cannot  locate,  dt,  sx;  left  city 

Illegally  employed — found  by  police,  sx,"  investigated  by  attendance 
officers;  legally  employed,  sx;  placed  in  school,  yr,  sx,  dt;  regu- 
larly attending  school,  sx;  over  age,  sx;  under  age,  sx;  will 
obtain  employment  certificates;  physically  unable  to  attend,  sx; 
not  found  or  moved,  sx;  incorrectly  reported,  sx;  cases  not  yet 
closed,  sx;  over  14  working  for  parents,  sx 

Kept  at  home  illegally — reported  by  police,  sx;  investigated  by  at- 
tendance officers;  placed  in  school,  sx;  legally  employed  at  home, 
sx;  elsewhere,  sx;  physically  unable  to  attend,  sx;  temporarily 
ill,  sx;  regularly  attending  school,  sx;  not  found  or  moved,  sx; 
under  age,  sx;  cases  not  yet  closed,  sx;  committed  to  institu- 
tions, sx;  placed  in  private  school,  sx;  mentally  defective,  sx; 
will  obtain  employment  certificate,  sx;  on  road  with  theatrical 
company,  sx;   other  causes,  sx;   minding  house,  dt,  yr,  + 

Causes  of  truancy  and  non-attendance  (each  class  and  total),  cases 
due  to — indifference  of  parents,  sx;  sickness,  sx,  dt;  poverty, 
sx,  dt;  temporary  necessity,  sx,  dt;  lack  of  clothing;  contagious 
disease;  parental  neglect,  sx,  dt,  yr;  mother  obliged  to  work; 
mentally  or  physically  disqualified,  sx,  dt;  out  late  at  night;  ques- 
tionable home;  total  over  16  years 

Visits  by  attendance  officers — ^to  homes  of  non-attendants,  yr;  to 
homes  of  truants,  yr;  homes  visited  twice,  mo;  homes  visited  three 
times,  mo;  to  schools,  dt,  yr,  mo;  to  stores  and  factories,  yr;  to 
courts,  yr;   miscellaneous,  yr 

Notices,  warnings,  etc.,  sent,  mo — to  parents  for  truancy;  for  non- 
attendance;  served  on  children;  on  employers;  compulsory  no- 
tices; interview  with  parents  at  office;  pupils  involved;  parents 
or  guardians  warned,  notified  or  written  to,  sx,  mo 

Treatment  of  truancy  cases  by  superintendent — summoned  for  hear- 
ing, yr;  attending;  failing  to  attend;  heard  on  charges,  yr;  placed 
on  probation;  transferred  to  other  schools,  yr;  improving  under 
probation  and  transfer;  disregarding  probation  and  recommended 
for  commitment,  yr;  committed  to  truant  schools;  parents  refus- 
ing to  sign  commitment  papers,  yr 

Treatment  of  incorrigibles  by  superintendent — on  charges,  yr;  placed 
on  probation;  transferred  to  other  schools,  yr;  improving  under 
probation  and  transfer;  disregarding  probation  and  recommended 
for  suspension  and  commitment,  yr;  parents  refusing  to  sign  com- 
mitment papers,  yr 

Action  by  courts,  juvenile-police-magistrate  —  children  taken  to, 
dt,   sx,   yr;    on   charge   of  truancy,   sx;    of   incorrigibility,   sx;    of 

65 


delinqyency;  of  neglect;  cases  committed,  yr;  persons  in  parental 
relation  arrested,  yr;  fined,  yr,  mo;  imprisoned,  yr;  prosecuted, 
mo;  other  persons,  yr,  firms,  yr,  or  corporations,  yr,  violating  com- 
pulsory education  law;  persons  prosecuted  for  selling  cigarettes 
to  school  children,  dt;  for  allowing  school  children  in  pool  rooms, 
dt;  persons  arrested  on  warrants,  sx;  cases  disposed  of;  prosecu- 
tions, sx,  dt;  of  persons  over  16;  of  boys;  convictions,  sx,  dt; 
cases  pending,  sx;  cases  dismissed  of  truancy;  of  non-attendance; 
commitments;  truants  committed,  yr  (when  first  arraigned,  sx) ; 
with  parents'  consent,  dt,  sx;  after  probation,  sx;  to  other  insti- 
tutions, sx;  truants  transferred  to  other  school;  non-attendants 
committed  to  truant  schools,  dt,  sx;  with  parents'  consent,  dt,  sx; 
transferred  to  another  school;  to  other  institutions;  suspended 
incorrigibles  placed  on  probation,  mo;  committed  to  truant  school, 
yr,  sx,  mo;  twice;  three  times;  to  other  institutions,  yr,  sx,  mo; 
to  private  homes;  to  parents  or  relatives;  total  children  placed  on 
probation,  yr,  sx;  total  transferred;  total  children  arrested  and 
parents  notified,  dt,  mo,  sx;  more  than  once;  special  cases;  parent 
cases 

Treatment  of  truancy  cases  by  truant  schools,  parental,  or  special 
schools  for  truants — enrollment,  sx;  registration,  tr,  yr,  -\-,  gr  (sx 
(a)  ),  na,  bp;  church  afl[iliation;  use  of  tobacco;  average,  yr,  gr; 
including  temporary  withdrawals;  since  admitted;  admitted  by 
transfer,  gr;  attendance,  average,  tr,  yr,  gr,  +,  %,  largest  number 
at  any  one  time;  no.  of  sessions;  average  age;  committed;  placed 
on  probation,  yr,  mo  (sx) ;  satisfactory,  sx;  parolled,  yr;  respected 
parole,  yr;  violated  parole  and  returned,  yr;  days  detained;  maxi- 
mum; minimum;  discharged,  with  work  certificate;  without  work 
certificate;  to  public  school;  left  city;  as  vagrant;  committed  to 
other  institutions;  by  court,  through  police;  through  parent; 
through  school;  to  other  truant  school;  to  hospital  or  other  in- 
stitution for  treatment;  death;  ready  to  return  to  regular  school; 
to  go  to  work  with  certificate;  without  certificate;  cured  of 
truancy;  of  incorrigibility;  improving  steadily;  spasmodically;  not 
improving 


Questions  Answered  by  One  or  More  of  72  Reports  Regarding 
WORKING   PAPERS,   WORK  CERTIFICATES,   ETC 

Certificates  issued — age  and  school,  yr  (na),  gr;  work,  mo,  sx,  gr  (sx); 
from  public  school,  gr  (sx,  mo);  other  schools,  gr  (sx,  mo); 
schools  outside  city,  gr  (sx,  mo) ;  public  school  below  6th  grade, 
gr  (sx,  mo);   approved,  mo;  refused,  mo,  sx;   revoked 

Exemptions — a,  yr,  gr;  on  grounds  of  poverty,  mo;  graduates;  full  or- 
phans;  father   dead;   mother  dead;   parents  separated;    divorced; 

-    66 


average  term  (weeks)  of  exemption;  weeks  for  which  exemptions 
were  granted;   affidavits  to  establish  age  of  children 

Aid — applications  for  scholarship  aid;  recommended  as  worthy;  rec- 
ommended to  remain  at  work;  required  to  remain  at  school;  not 
located;  aided;  from  public  school;  from  private  or  parochial 
school;   applications  for  free  text  books  investigated 

Newsboys — registered 

Questions  Answered  by  One  or  More  oi  72  Reports  Regarding 
POPULATION    AND    ATTENDANCE 

All  Schools 

Population — yr,  dt;  school  census;  %  in  public  schools,  dt;  %  school 
age  to  population 

School  age — sx,  co  (sx) ;  in  census,  co  (dt),  sx,  dt  (sx) ;  compulsory; 
in  census,  a;  in  school,  a;  not  in  public  school;  in  other  schools; 
physically  unable  to  attend,  %;  between  10  and  18  who  cannot 
read  or  write  English,  sx;  who  cannot  read  or  write  any  language, 
sx;  between  4  and  18,  a,  sc,  sx  (so) ;  between  9  and  15,  yr;  aver- 
age age  of  those  not  in  school,  sx   (dt) 

Sittings — dt,  yr;   deficiency  or  excess,  dt 

Enrollment — mo  (yr),  yr,  dt  (mo  (yr)  ),  sx,  a  (%,  +,  sx,  yr),  +  (y,  % 
(yr),  between  9  and  15  (%)  ),  na;  excluding  transfers;  re-enroll- 
ment, yr;  net,  yr  (dt,  +  (dt,  yr,  %  (dt,  yr)  )  ) ;  average,  yr,  dt 
(yr);  %;  a  (yr,  between  9  and  15  (yr)  );  new  pupils,  tr;  from 
other  districts;  outside  city;  other  than  public  schools;  same 
school  district;   entered,  sx,  a    (sx) ;   remaining,  sx 

Registration — na,  bp,  co,  sx  (yr,  dt  (yr),  gr  (sc)  ),  yr  (gr),  a,  +  (%), 
gr  (tr),  sc  (sx),  gr  (yr) ;  including  temporary  withdrawals,  yr,  +; 
at  end  of  year,  a,  yr;  %,  sx,  tr,  on  enumeration,  yr;  net,  tr;  aver- 
age, yr  (-+-  (dt,  %  (dt)  ),  dt,  sx  (%,  dt),  +  (%) ;  for  given  no.  of 
yrs;  %  on  enrollment,  yr;  average  monthly,  sc;  admitted  by  trans- 
fer, sx;  from  city  schools;  state;  private;  other  states  or  coun- 
tries; transfered,  sx;  nationalities  with  greatest  representation; 
part-time,  %  (dt) ;  average  per  teacher 

Attendance — sx  (dt),  age-groups  (sx),  a  (gr,  sx  (dt),  %),  average  age 
(sx,  gr),  gr;  other  than  public  schools,  sx,  age-groups  (sx) ;  church 
schools,  sx  (dt);  private,  sx  (dt) ;  not  in  school,  sx  (dt) ;  Co  on 
registration,  sx,  yr,  tr;  %  on  average  registration,  yr;  %  on  aver- 
age monthly  presence;  average,  yr  (dt  (sx),  mo;  mo,  +  (yr,  dt 
(sx),  %  (yr,  dt  (sx)  )  );  average  rate  for  no.  of  yrs;  %  on  actual  no. 

67 


days  school  was  in  session,  tr  (gr),  dt,  sx;  occupation;  regu- 
larity of,  yr  (dt),  %;  varying  degrees  of,  %;  average  monthly, 
sc,  sx,  mo;  persistent,  by  20  da.  groups,  by  y^  da.  per  week;  days 
present,  sc;  average  per  teacher;  %  on  no.  of  days  sc.  was  in  ses- 
sion, yr 

Part-time  attendance — sc,  yr  (dt),  +   (dt,  %  (dt)   ) 

Absence — (average,  sx;  not  absent,  yr,  sx;  y^.  da,  sx,  %;  varying  de- 
grees of,  %;  legally  under  8;  legally  under  14;  deaf,  sx;  crippled, 
sx;  dumb,  sx;  blind,  sx;  mentally  defective,  sx;  teachers,  sc,  % 
da,  yr 

Tardiness — pupils,  yr,  -f ;  not  tardy,  i/^  da  (sx),  yr;  teachers,  sc,  time 
lost 

Kindergartens 

Enrollment — mo  (yr),  sc,  sx  (sc),  yr;  average  monthly,  yr,  %  (yr) ; 
registration,  yr  (sx),  sx,  tr  (gr,  sx  (gr),  sc),  sc,  dt  (sx),  a  (yr, 
dt,  sx  (gr,  yr)  ),  qr  (sc,  yr) ;  at  close  of  yr  (sc,  yr) ;  %,  tr  (gr,  sx 
(gr)  );  average,  dt,  %  (dt),  yr,  +  (%),  sx  (%),  sc,  groups;  average 
monthly,  sx,  dt  (sx) ;  average  per  teacher,  yr,  +,  %,  gr,  dt 

Attendance — average,  sx,  dt  (sx),  tr  (gr,  sc),  yr,  mo  (yr),  dt  (sx),  sc; 
%  (tr  (gr),  dt,  sc) ;  average  per  teacher,  gr 

Absence — average,  dt 

Colored    Kindergarten 

Enrollment — sc,  sx  (sc),  yr;  membership,  qr  (sc,  yr) ;  close  of  yr,  sc, 
yr;   average,  yr,  sc;  attendance,  average,  yr,  sc,  %  (sc) 

All    Elementary  Schools 

Enrollment — sx,  sc  (groups,  sx,  gr),  gr,  groups,  yr,  -f,  subject  (sc),  de 
(gr,  sc),  na,  bp  (sc);  excluding  transfers,  sc;  counted  only  once, 
sc;  entered,  sx  (a,  sc) ;  above  normal  age,  gr,  %  (gr,  yr) ;  transfers, 
sc,  sx   (sc) 

Registration — sc  (dt),  sx  (sc  (a,  gr),  gr),  dt,  gr  (sx,  dt),  cl  (sx  (a)  ), 
yr,  +,  tr  (sc  (gr),  gr),  a  (sx,  gr  (dt,  sx),  sc) ;  including  temporary 
withdrawals,  groups  (sc),  sc  (yr) ;  groups  (sc,  sx,  gr  (sx  (a)  )  ); 
at  end  of  yr  (sc,  sx  (sc,  gr  (sc)  )  );  net,  tr  (sc) ;  average,  dt,  yr, 
+    (yr,  dt,  %),  sx   (%,  sc),  sc   (groups),  groups,  %   (dt) 

Attendance — average,  sc,  dt  (sc),  tr  (sc  (gr),  gr),  sx  (sc),  yr,  -f,  gr 
(sc),  groups  (sc),  %  (sc,  groups  (sc)  );  persistency,  y^  da.  absences, 
sc,  %  (sc) 

Absence — average,  sc;  various  degrees  (sc,  %  (sc)  );  average  per 
teacher,  yr  (+,  %),  sc  (a,  sx) ;  remaining,  sc,  sx  (sc),  gr  (sc) 

68 


Tardiness — yr;  not  tardy,  sc;  not  absent,  sc 

Colored    Elementary   Schools 

Enrollment — sx,  yr,  +,  na,  sc;  including  transfers,  sc;  entered,  sx 
(sc);  transfered,  sc,  sx  (sc) ;  registration,  sc,  sx  (sc  (a,  gr)  );  in- 
cluding temporary  withdrawals,  sc;  at  end  of  yr,  sc,  sx  (sc,  gr 
(sc)  ) ;  average  (sc) ;  attendance,  average,  sc,  %  (sc) ;  average  per 
teacher,  sc;  persistency  by  %  da.  absences,  sc;  not  absent,  sc; 
tardiness,  yr;   not  tardy,  sc 

Primary    Department 

Enrollment — sx,  %  (yr) ;  average  monthly,  yr,  dt  (yr) ;  registration,  tr, 
sx  (gr),  sc  (gr),  gr  (cl  (yr)  ),  yr,  +  (yr  (gr)  ),  %  (tr  (sx  (gr)  )  ); 
average,  gr  (yr) ;  average  a  (sc  (gr)  );  a  (sx  (gr)  );  average  per 
teacher,  gr;  attendance,  average,  tr  (gr),  yr,  dt  (yr),  gr,  %  (tr 
(gr)  );   average  per  teacher,  gr 

Grammar    Department 

Enrollment — sx,  %  (yr) ;  average  monthly,  yr,  dt  (yr) ;  registration, 
tr,  sx  (gr),  sc  (gr),  qr  (cl  (yr)  ),  yr,  +  (yr  (qr)  ),  %  (tr  (sx 
(gr)  )  ) ;  average,  gr  (yr) ;  average  age,  sc  (gr) ;  average  per 
teacher,  gr;  new  pupils,  tr,  %  (tr) ;  transferred,  tr;  to  public,  tr, 
%  (tr) ;  net  registration,  tr,  %  (tr) ;  never  before  attended,  tr,  % 
(tr) ;  registered  this  term  and  last  also,  tr,  %  (tr) 

Attendance — average,  tr  (gr),  yr,  dt  (yr),  gr,  %  (tr  (gr)  );  average  per 
teacher,  gr,  a,  sx  (gr);  transfers,  from  public  schools,  tr,  %  (tr) 

All  High,  Normal  and  Latin  Schools 

Enrollment — yr  (dt,  sc,  a  (sx)  ),  sx  (yr  (gr),  cl),  sc  (sx  (gr,  cl,),  gr 
(sx,  sc,  yr),  a  (sx,  sc  (sx)  ),  tr,  na  (sc),  de  (gr,  sc),  +  (cl  (sx 
(yr)  )  ),  %  (yr),  %  of  boys  (yr),  %  of  +  (dt) ;  %  on  average  mem- 
bership, yr;   subject,  cl,  sc  (cl);  net,  sc,  yr;   average,  yr 

Registration — yr  (sx,  +,  dt),  tr  (gr,  sx  (gr)  ),  +  (sx,  yr),  sc  (sx,  dt), 
a  (sx,  gr  (sx),  yr),  qr  (yr,  cl  (yr)  ),  sx,  na,  bp;  %  on  number  ad- 
mitted, yr;  %  of  boys;  including  temporary  withdrawals,  sx,  yr,  sc 
(yr) ;  excluding  transfers,  sc,  sx  (sc);  net,  tr,  sx,  sc  (sx) ;  %,  tr  (gr, 
sx  (gr)  );  average,  dt,  yr  (+  (%)  ),  sx  (%),  sc  (yr,  +,  sx,  gr),  gr 
(yr),  mo,  %  (dt) ;  average  per  teacher,  gr,  yr,  sc,  tr 

Attendance — average,  sc  (sx),  sx,  tr  (gr),  yr  (  +  ),  gr  (sc),  mo;  oc- 
cupation; %  boys;  %  (sc,  tr  (gr),  gr  (sc),  mo,  yr) ;  attending  during 
year;  persistency,  by  %  da.  absences  (sc,  ''/c  (sc),  yr) ;  remaining 
at  end  of  year,  sx  (yr,  gr),  sc  (sx),  gr  (sc),  qr,  yr,  cl  (yr),  +  (qr, 
yr);   entered,  sc,  sx  (sc),  tr  (sx,  sc);   finishing  first  year,  sx,  sc; 

69 


received  by  transfer,  sc,  sx  (sc) ;  transferred  to  other  schools,  sx, 
sc  (sx) ;  new  pupils,  sx;  re-admitted,  yr;  average  age,  sc,  gr,  sx 
(gr),  over  18  (sx,  sc) ;  average  per  teacher,  gr,  tr,  sc;  absence, 
average,  sx,  sc  (sx) ;  varying  degrees  of,  %;  not  absent,  sc,  yr; 
varying  degrees  of  non-absence 

Tardiness — pupils,  yr,  %  (yr) ;  cases  of  tardiness,  yr;  not  tardy,  sc 

Colored    High   Schools 

Enrollment — yr,  sx  (a),  subject  (ci),  sx  (cl),  sc  (sx  (cl)  ),  na  (sc), 
+  (yr),  %  (yr);  registration,  +  (yr),  sc  (sx),  a  (yr),  qr  (yr,  cl 
(yr)  ),  sx,  %  (yr) ;  average,  yr,  sc,  mo;  including  temporary  v^ith- 
drawals,  sx,  yr;  excluding  transfers,  sc,  sx  (sc) ;  net,  sx,  so  (sx); 
attendance,  average,  sx,  +  (yr),  mo,  %  (sc,  mo,  yr) ;  persistency, 
by  %  da.  absences  (sc) ;  remaining  at  end  of  year,  sx  (yr,  gr),  qr, 
yr,  cl  (yr),  +  (qr,  yr) ;  entered,  sc,  sx  (sc) ;  received  by  transfer, 
sc,  sx  (sc) ;  transfered  to  other  schools,  sx,  sc  (sx) ;  new^  pupils, 
sx;  readmitted,  yr;  average  per  teacher,  sc;  not  absent,  sc,  yr; 
tardy,  yr,  %   (y) ;   cases  of  tardiness,  yr;   not  tardy,  sc 

Training   and    Normal   Schools 

Enrollment — tr  (yr),  sc,  sx,  gr,  +.  bp,  na,  de  (tr) ;  end  of  year,  sx  (gr); 
net,  sc,  average 

Registration — dt,  sc,  yr,  +,  tr  (gr,  sx  (gr)  ),  cl,  a  (sx  (gr)  ),  gr,  qr 
(yr),  sx  (a);  excluding  transfers,  sx;  including  temporary  vfith- 
drawals.yr,  sc  (yr) ;  net,  yr,  tr,  sc;  average,  yr,  +  (%),  sx  (%) ;  %, 
tr  (gr,  sx  (gr)  );  received  by  transfer,  sx;  transfered  to  other 
schools,  sx;  new  pupils;  entered,  sx;  average  per  teacher,  gr 

Attendance — average,  dt,  sc,  tr  (gr),  sx,  yr  (  +  );  %,  yr,  tr  (gr);  aver- 
age per  teacher,  gr;  absence,  average;  not  absent;  cases  of  tardi- 
ness, yr 

All    Evening   Schools 

Enrollment — sx,  na  (sx,  bp  (sx) ;  English-speaking  adults;  foreigners 
learning  English,  yr  (sx),  -f,  sc,  a  (sc);  occupation,  sx;  net,  sx, 
sc  (sx) ;  registration,  yr,  +;  average,  yr,  +.  sc;  attendance,  aver- 
age, a  (sx,  sc  (sx)  ),  sx,  yr,  -f,  English-speaking  adults;  foreign- 
ers learning  English;  occupation;  %  on  enrollment  of  English- 
speaking  adults,  yr;  of  foreigners  learning  English,  so;  average 
no.  evenings  attended  per  pupil,  sx;  persistency,  sx,  sc  (sx) ;  aver- 
age per  teacher,  sc;   average  age,  yr;"  sessions,  sx 

Colored  Evening  Schools 

Enrollment — sc;  registration,  sc;  average,  sc;  attendance,  average, 
sc,  %  (sc,  dt) ;  persistency,  so;  average  per  teacher,  sc 

70 


Evening    Elementary   Schools 

Enrollment— dt  (sx),  na  (sc,  sx),  +,  co  (sc),  sc,  sx  (sc),  yr,  bp  (so, 
sx  (sc)  );  registration,  yr  (dt),  +  (%  (dt),  sc),  sc;  average,  dt,  yr, 
sc;  attendance,  average,  dt,  sx,  sc  (sx),  de,  yr  (dt) ;  %,  +  (dt); 
English-speaking  adults,  sc;  %,  sc;  on  registration  (dt  (sc)  );  on 
enrollment  (sc,  dt  (sc)  );  on  average  register  (dt  (sc)  );  average 
no.  evenings  attended  per  pupil,  sx,  sc  (sx) ;  sessions,  sc;  aver- 
age per  teacher,  sc;   absence,  average,  sx 


Evening   High  Schools 

Enrollment — ^dt  (sx),  +,  na  (sc  (sx)  ),  bp,  sc  (sx),  sx;  subject  (sc) ; 
registration,  dt,  yr,  +  (%);  subject;  residence  district;  average, 
dt,  yr,  sc  (sx) 

Attendance — average,  yr,  dt,  sx,  sc  (sx),  %;  residence  district,  subject 
(sc);  %  on  enrollment,  dt  (sx),  sc;  %  on  registration,  dt,  subject; 
%  on  average  registration,  dt;  average  no.  evenings  attended  per 
pupil,  sc,  sx  (sc) ;  remaining  at  close  of  year,  sc  (sx) ;  average 
per  teacher,  dt,  sc;   absence,  average,  sc  (sx) ;   sessions,  sc 

Evening,  Technical,   Drawing  and  Cooking   Schools 

Enrollment,  sc;  registration,  sc,  average,  sc,  yr;  attendance,  average, 
sc,.  yr,  %  (sc),  +   (yr) ;  absence,  average;  sessions,  sc 

Trade  and   Industrial   Schools 

Enrollment — sc  (gr),  %  (yr),  a  (de,  sx  (da)  ),  co,  sx  (co),  de  (sx), 
subject  (sc) ;  membership,  average,  sx,  de  (sc),  co  (sx),  yr,  sc; 
attendance,  average,  sx,  co   (sx),  sc,  %  (sc) ;  average  age 

Free    Lectures,    Evening    Recreation,    Domestic 
Science  and    Manual   Training  Centres 

Enrollment — sx,  gr,  yr  (sx),  centres  (sc),  average;  membership,  gr,  sc 
(gr),  average,  gr,  sc  (gr) ;  attendance,  aggregate,  dt;  average 
daily,  sc,  dt;  average  weekly,  yr,  sx  (yr) ;  centres  (sc);  tardiness, 
centres  <sc);   absence,  centres  (sc) 

Special  Classes:    Non  English-speaking, 

Work-certificate,  German,  Preparatory, 

Special    Pupils 

Enrollment— a,  dt  (a),  sc;  language,  na,  sx;  age-groups;  registration, 
tr  (gr);  net,  tr,  gr,  bp;   average,  groups,  sx;   attendance,  tr   (gr), 

71 


+  ;  perfect,  sc;  average  duration;  varying  degrees  of  absence,  sc; 
new  pupils,  tr;  rapid  progress,  a,  dt  (a) 

Vacation    Industrial,   Manual   Training, 

Kindergarten,   Primary,  Grammar,   Private   and 

Parochial  Schools  and   Playgrounds 

Enrollment — dt  (sc),  sc,  sx;  on  waiting  list,  so;  registration,  average, 
sc  (sx) ;  attendance,  aggregate  days,  dt  (sc,  kind  of  playground); 
average,  dt  (sc,  kind  of  playground),  sx  (sc),  %  (sc,  dt);  average 
per  teacher,   sc 

School    Baths 

Enrollment — da  (sc);  week  (sc) ;  yr  (sc) ;  attendance,  sx  (dt,  time  of 
da.  (dt)  ) ;  average  weekly 

Corporate  Schools 
Registration,  sc 


72 


POINTS  OF  AGREEMENT  AS  TO   UNIFORMITY 

School  Reports  Are  Not  Now  Uniform 

State  with  state 

City  with  city 

District  with  district  within  a  city 

Year  with  j'ear 
Uniformity  is  Desirable  if  Practicable 

So  far  as  public  schools  have  common  experien.ce 

So  far  as  public  schools  have  common  needs 
Uniformity  Would  Benefit 

Administrators 

Teachers 

Pupils 

Taxpa^'ers 

Students  of  education 
There  is  a  Practicable  Minimum  of  Uuiformit}' 

In  content 

In  form 

In  nomenclature 

UNSETTLED    QUESTIONS   AS   TO    UNIFORMITY 

What  needs  and  what  experiences  are  common  to  all  public  schools? 

What  should  appear  in  summaries? 

What  main  divisions  are  significant  ? 

What  subdivisions  should  be  given  for  each  main  division  ? 

Where  should  percentages  be  used  ? 

What    material  should  be  published   annually — biennially — not 

more  than  once  in  five  years? 
What  uniform  current  records  are  necessary  in  order  to  furnish 

material  for  minimum  uniform  reports  ? 
What,  if  any,  material  should  be  omitted  from  city  reports  but 

included  in  state  and  national  reports  ? 

73 


-t^^ 


BUREAU   OF  MUNICIPAL   RESEARCH 

January  ist,  1906    Organized  as  "Bureau  of  City  Betterment" 

May  3rd,  1907  Incorporated  as  "Bureau  of  Municipal  Research" 

PURPOSES 

To  promote  efficient  and  economical  municipal  government;  to  promote 
the  adoption  of  scientific  methods  of  accounting  and  of  reporting  the 
details  of  municipal  business,  with  a  view  to  facilitating  the  work  of 
public  officials;  to  secure  constructive  publicity  in  matters  pertaining  to 
municipal  problems  ;  to  collect,  to  classify,  to  analyze,  to  correlate, 
to  interpret  and  to  publish  facts  as  to  the  administration  of  municipal 
government,     (Articles  of  Incorporation) 

PRINCIPAL  REPORTS,    JANUARY,    1906  to  JULY,    1909 

I  Some   Phases   of   the   Work    of  the   Department   of   Street 

Cleaning  30c. 

3  *Salary  Increases  Not  Provided  for  in  Budget 

5  *The  City  of  New  York,  the  Street  Bailroad  Companies  and 

a  Million  and.  a  Half  Dollars 

6  *How  Manhattan  is  Governed 

7  Analysis    of  the    Salary  Expenditure  of  the  Department  of 

Health  of  the  City  of  New  York  for  the  Year  1906 

8  A  Department  of  Municipal  Audit  and  Examination  30c. 

9  Making  a  Municipal  Budget ;  Functional  Accounts  and  Becords 

for  the  Department  of  Health  60e. 

10  *New  York  City's  Department  of  Finance 

I I  The  Park  Question,  Part  I,  Critical  Study  and  Constructive 

Suggestions  Pertaining  to  Administrative  and  Accounting 
Methods  of  the  Department  of  Parks:  Manhattan  and 
Kichmond  $1.10 

12  The  Park  Question,  Part  II,  Critical  Study  and  Constructive 

Suggestions  Pertaining  to  Bevenue  and  Deposits  of  the 
Department  of  Parks :  Manhattan  and  Bichmond  60c. 

13  Memorandum  of  Matters  Belating  to  New  York  City's  Debt 

that  Suggest  the  Necessity  either  for  Judicial  Buling  or 
for  Legislation  30c. 

14  *Bureau  of  Child  Hygiene  40c. 

15  Questions  Answered  by  School  Beports  as  They  Are 

16  New  York   City's  Debt :     Facts  and  Law  Belating  to  the 

Constitutional  Limitation  of  New  York's  Indebtedness  35c. 

17  Collecting  Water   Bevenues:    Methods   Employed   by   the 

Bureau  of  Water  Begister,  Manhattan,  with  Suggestions 
for  Beorganization  5Gg.    Digest  of  same,  free  on  application 

18  What  Should  New  York's  Next  Mayor  Do  ?    10c. 

19  School  Progress  and  School  Facts  25c. 

REPORTS  IN   PROGRESS,  JULY,  1909 

Administration   of    Department   of    Water    Supply,    Gas    and 
Electricity 

Beal  Estate  Transactions,  Department  of  Finance 

Tenement  House  Administration  ':         i^  ^     1    1 

Bureau  of  Supplies  and  Bepairs,  Department  of  Police 

Series  of  Beports :    New  York  as  Bevenue  Producer,  as  Budget 
Maker,  as  Operator  of  Shops,  etc. 

*  Out  of  print 


JAW. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


N0li-REK!1WABLE 

1999 


OCT  2  9 


DUE  2  WKS  FROM 


DATE  RECEIVED 


JCLA  ACCESS 
mterllbrary  Loans 
1 1 630  University 
Box  951 575 
1  o6  Anaeles.  C?A 


eERVICES  B 
Research  Library 

90095-1 S7^ 


REC'DYRl  0BCC9f* 


m   L-!i 
-10.'44(21»1) 


\^ 


UNIVEli; 


LOS  ANGfciLES 
LIBRARY 


LB 


Fjnrfian   nf  muni- 


B89s     cipal  research, 
New  ^nrV: .' 


UCLA-Young   Research    Library 

LB2846   .B89s 


ochool  progress  and 
school  facts. 


L  009  502  716  5 


LB 

2846 

B89s 


